[Fontconfig] Fontconfig 2.10.0 mingw build broken
akira at tagoh.org
Mon Jul 23 10:32:49 PDT 2012
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 9:36 PM, Damon Register
<damon.w.register at lmco.com> wrote:
> On 7/22/2012 10:47 PM, Akira TAGOH wrote:
>> Hmm, what the version of ln command is it? that looks like it prevents
> It is version 5.97.
>> to install something with DESTDIR say. for the real install, we could
>> use install-data-hook instead of install-data-local though, it doesn't
>> help when using DESTDIR with that broken ln command.
> I don't follow. How is it broken? Even though the ln might be broken,
> I can look at the code in ./conf.d/Makefile and source directory used
> (ln -s source dest) just doesn't make sense (to me anyway).
I don't see any error on Linux say... ln is capable to create a broken
symlink (at that point) but it could be valid later.
Anyway, on git master, installing config files happens earlier than
creating symlinks now. it should works for you. try it.
> The make install target in question (install-data-local:) is trying to
> ln -s from to
> where from is a directory under /c/gtk3 (the destination)
Yes. it's intentional, because those symlinks are referring from the
installed config files. otherwise all of users has to install the
source code too.
> There are a few things that just don't make sense.
> 1. the "from" is a non-existent folder in the destination install location
> 2. why should choosing a non-existent "from" be blamed on the ln command.
> That is operator error, is it not?
> 3. These files in question do exist in the source build folder. Is this
> not a logical place for them to be?
> 4. Shouldn't the general goal be to get those files from the source to
> the destination through some method whether it be cp, ln or mv?
> 5. if "installed symlinks shouldn't be referred to the source", then to
> where should they be referred? Should there perhaps have been a cp
> preceding the ln so that the files are copied and then linked?
> I do see that the make process is different in this area when compared to
> fontconfig-2.9.0. when I build that one, there isn't any problem.
Well, difference between 2.9 and 2.10 is whether the source place of
ln is the relative path or the absolute path. no changes in the
installation order. so any config files shouldn't be there at that
time. but your ln didn't just complain that for the relative path I
> Damon Register
> Fontconfig mailing list
> Fontconfig at lists.freedesktop.org
More information about the Fontconfig