Change History (18)
comment:1 by , 18 years ago
comment:2 by , 18 years ago
Agreed it needs to be well checked out.
However, I would really like to push this into BLFS-6.2 if it works. In addition to many improvements, the configuration has improved a lot. This would make the whole messy section about configuring Xft and adding fonts a lot simpler.
comment:3 by , 18 years ago
| Summary: | Fontconfig-2.4.0 → Fontconfig-2.4.1 |
|---|
Version increment to 2.4.1
I would prefer to postpone this update until after BLFS-6.2 is released. Following are some thoughts:
- This new version 2.4.1 is a big-time bug-fix for 2.4.0 where
existing functionality from previous versions was left out. Therefore, 2.4.0 was not a good release. As much as I like Keith Packard's work, it appears that this version may also present some *hidden* bumps. We just simply don't know, and don't really have the time for exhaustive testing.
- As Dan mentioned, it is an entirely new way of life for
setting up fonts. I think changing it right before release could be confusing, and/or difficult to maintain (field support questions) as there could be a learning curve Editors don't have time for.
- As best as I can tell, 2.3.x works as designed and is not
difficult to configure. The only time folks have experienced difficulty with configuring fontconfig is if they didn't follow the instructions.
Of course, if it can be shown that there is so much improved functionality in the 2.4.x series, then we can reconsider, but right now I'm going on "many improvements". I would prefer we be a bit more technical in presenting the improvements to the community and a decision then be made.
comment:4 by , 18 years ago
One way we can get the major improvement I'm interested in (/etc/fonts rework) is to backport those fixes to 2.3.2. For instance, the Xft section says to install DejaVu fonts then hack up fonts.conf so that it knows about this font. Well, knowledge of this font comes by default in fontconfig-2.4.x. There are many other fixes in there, too.
The fonts.conf in 2.3.2 is way suboptimal. As Alexander has pointed out, Keith Packard also maintains the Debian package for fontconfig, and they don't use anything like the shipped fonts.conf. At the very least, we could take the Debian patch for 2.3.2 and apply that. I haven't looked at it closely, but I'm sure it would be an improvement over what's in there by default.
comment:5 by , 18 years ago
I suppose I should have reworded/extended my reasons. I can see this is something that is not going to be dropped.
Paldo still uses 2.3.x as the stable version of Fontconfig. Not that this is a big thing, but it does indicate that Jurg has not fully tested, or is comfortable, with 2.4.x. I know I am not. It took Keith a year and a half to come up with the 2.4.x version and within a week of release, it was determined that there were major flaws. I'm just not comfortable updating, and the chief reason is that nothing is gained other than it is 'easier' to configure.
Backporting fixes and all that is *not* going to happen. We either go with the current version, or go with the updated version. It is my opinion that the new version can't be tested as well as it should at this point in time.
Additionally, it sounds as if you (Dan) are the only person at this time qualified to support the update. Alexander doesn't count as he has mentioned his availability to the LFS project is soon to be nil (if it isn't already).
Again, this situation needs to be discussed on -dev and a determination should be made after:
1) what really the benefits are other than it is easier to configure 2) who really knows it and is comfortable in helping to support it 3) who all is going to do the testing 4) how will the testing be accomplished
Dan, I appreciate your quest for a 'better' font system. But I just don't see the existing one as broken. And with that, to me a major change to something that affects much of BLFS should be left for time to do months of testing in a development environment.
Any further discussion needs to go to -dev so that others can provide input also. :-)
comment:6 by , 18 years ago
Just a quick note speaking from experience with fontconfig 2.4.x in paldo testing. It works mostly well but Firefox and Epiphany crash here after printing any web site if fontconfig >= 2.3.96 is installed, tested on x86 and x86_64, up to and including version 2.4.1. I haven't heard of such problems from other distros and haven't got time to fix it yet but just FYI.
comment:8 by , 17 years ago
| Milestone: | 6.3 → 6.2.1 |
|---|
comment:9 by , 17 years ago
| Summary: | Fontconfig-2.4.1 → Fontconfig-2.4.2 |
|---|
comment:10 by , 17 years ago
| Owner: | changed from to |
|---|---|
| Status: | new → assigned |
comment:11 by , 17 years ago
Some Notes:
I had to pass --localstatedir=/var so that it would use /var/cache/fontconfig instead of /usr/var/...
--disable-docs and the docdir is still valid. I'm not sure about the --without-add-fonts
Also noted that pkgconfig is now a dependency (not sure if required or optional)
comment:13 by , 17 years ago
Thanks, Randy. If you want to take this one, go for it. My main reason is that I want to try to nail down the configuration.
comment:14 by , 17 years ago
Nah, go ahead Dan. I'm weak in the font configuration area. You'll do a much better job of the update.
comment:15 by , 17 years ago
| Milestone: | 6.2.1 → 6.3 |
|---|
Moving this to 6.3 as this cannot be merged into the 6.2 branch. It should use the new FreeType API which would break BLFS-6.2.x packages.
comment:16 by , 17 years ago
| Resolution: | → fixed |
|---|---|
| Status: | assigned → closed |
Forgot about this. Fixed in r6762 (and thanks to Bruce for fixing up some boneheaded grammar). One thing bugs me about this. If you don't --disable-docs, then everything gets installed with make install. I don't have docbook-utils, so I'm going on what Randy said a few comments back. Is there a better way that this could be tackled?
Also, I should mention that the configuration seems to work fine for me out of the box. I didn't really try anything, though.
comment:17 by , 17 years ago
It does work out of the box. However, the Wiki page links to material relevant only for previous versions of fontconfig. Any objections if I blank it?
comment:18 by , 17 years ago
No, please do. Sometime before the next release I plan to overhaul the font installation section of the X setup page. I think I might move the actual font installation part for TTF fonts (DejaVu, FreeFont, etc.) to the fontconfig page.
This update is touted as being API/ABI compatible with the book's 2.3.x series, but it should be thouroughly checked out if it is determined to proceed with the update for the BLFS-6.2 release.