Quoting Paul Wise (pabs@debian.org): > Does the location of the conf.avail files matter at all? AFAICT > fontconfig only looks at the conf.d directory not the conf.avail > direct. Agreed. I'm also not convinced byt the (very few) arguments given in the referenced links. Why shouldn't users be allowed to modify the fontconfig files? The only reason given in http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/fontconfig/2008-October/003030.html is "we deploy policy through those fontconfig files, we absolutely do not want users to change them (they're free to un-reference the files in conf.d, or write their own fontconfig rules in different files, but we instruct rpm to stomp on old versions of our files on updates). Since we mark those files as non-modifiable (%config and not %config(noreplace) in rpm speak) rpmlint considers them as data, not configuration, and complains of their location under /etc." In short : Fedora folks consider that these files should not be user-modifiable, thus do not mark them as config files and thus it breaks their tools. *I* do not consider the files should not be user-modifiable. *I* am not in position to decide what our users might want to do and, therefore, I prefer allowing them to modify the files. And thus keep them in /etc. At least, this is my feeling right now and I would thus need to be convinced by skilled FHS/Debian wizards that the decision to move the fontconfig files out of /etc is a good decision. So, as of now, I'd say "hold on, please".
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature