On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 04:14, Emile van Bergen wrote:
> May I object?
You may :)
> Fontconfig is a large, non-language neutral programmatic
> interface that would have to be universally adopted for this solution to
Well, I'm not advocating removing Defoma, just using fontconfig where
> I think a two-way approach would be best:
> 1. design a common information base containing everything you'd ever want
> an application to know about the list of available fonts on a system;
Hmmm. How do you see this being done?
> 2. retain a push-mechanism so that old applications can be notified of
> changes in relevant parts of this font information base;
> 3. encourage new applications to use this information base directly,
> possibly through a simple library, but ideally it should be simple
> enough for non-expert programmers to access directly.
I don't think fontconfig's API is that hard...but OK.
> Of course, this could all be done with fontconfig as the common part,
> but I'd be /much/ happier with a simple directory tree that provides a
> few indexes through symlinks.
I think it makes more sense to use fontconfig.
> Parts of defoma could be kept to notify old applications of changes and
> convert the tree into whatever application-specific format, and new ones
> can use the trees directly. Ghostscript could get a patch so it could
> use the 'bypsname' directory in addition to its Fontmap files.
I think we'll have to keep Defoma for some time.
> I'm not claiming this as an do-all, end-all solution; I haven't even
> fully thought this out, and there may be much better schemes than
> byfamily and bypsname, but I hope you'll consider something /simple/ and
> language-neutral like this before you require each application to adopt
> fontconfig in order to become aware of fonts installed by dpkg.
Ok, but this is a grander goal than what I wanted, which was just for
font packages to rerun fc-cache.
- From: Colin Walters <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Re: fonts
- From: Emile van Bergen <email@example.com>