From owner-freebsd-x11@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 31 00:00:09 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-x11@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AA5516A4D0 for ; Fri, 31 Dec 2004 00:00:09 +0000 (GMT) Received: from creme-brulee.marcuscom.com (creme-brulee.marcuscom.com [24.172.16.118]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D412D43D39 for ; Fri, 31 Dec 2004 00:00:08 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from marcus@FreeBSD.org) Received: from shumai.marcuscom.com (shumai.marcuscom.com [192.168.1.4]) iBV00i74041195; Thu, 30 Dec 2004 19:00:44 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from marcus@FreeBSD.org) From: Joe Marcus Clarke To: Alexander Leidinger In-Reply-To: <20041231004046.715eaea2@Magellan.Leidinger.net> References: <20041230195320.GA91304@xor.obsecurity.org> <20041230203049.GA11245@xor.obsecurity.org> <20041230211112.GA20159@xor.obsecurity.org> <20041230215331.GA29414@xor.obsecurity.org> <1104447677.8767.3.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> <20041231004046.715eaea2@Magellan.Leidinger.net> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-tKgLdTF/okvoG0yHcsSD" Organization: FreeBSD, Inc. Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 18:59:52 -0500 Message-Id: <1104451192.23882.2.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.3 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port cc: x11@FreeBSD.org cc: Kris Kennaway Subject: Re: linux vs freebsd fc-cache binaries X-BeenThere: freebsd-x11@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: X11 on FreeBSD -- maintaining and support List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 00:00:09 -0000 --=-tKgLdTF/okvoG0yHcsSD Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 2004-12-31 at 00:40 +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote: > On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 18:01:17 -0500 > Joe Marcus Clarke wrote: >=20 > > 2.1.9 would work, but we have not updated due to the API changes. > > Therefore, I haven't tested 2.1.9 to know if its rendering style will b= e > > uglier than 2.1.7. If someone can produce a 2.1.9 RPM, and it renders > > decent fonts, then by all means, go for it. >=20 > Will the data produced by fc-cache be compatible? The linux bits will > use the FreeBSD fonts, so any files generated in a place which FreeBSD > sees too has to be compatible. The data produced by the two should be compatible, but the versions of fontconfig are so different, I can't say for sure. The files, however, are text, so you should be able to visually compare >=20 > Another question: does fc-cache produce anything else except the > fonts.cache files in the fonts directories? If the answer is "no" we > don't have to run fc-cache in the linux case and installing a font > doesn't needs a run of the linux version. Everytime a font is added, fc-cache should be run to update the font cache. However, it isn't necessary to do so, since fontconfig will processes each directory on the fly. That said, fonts.cache-1 is the only file created by fc-cache. Joe >=20 > The implication in the "yes" case is, that we have to modify the font > ports to also run the linux fc-cache program if it is installed... >=20 > Bye, > Alexander. >=20 --=20 Joe Marcus Clarke FreeBSD GNOME Team :: gnome@FreeBSD.org FreeNode / #freebsd-gnome http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome --=-tKgLdTF/okvoG0yHcsSD Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBB1JZ4b2iPiv4Uz4cRAhYQAJ0cau/SmaFqzdV6jANpwgjIWfCCFACcCKZF zSgwjvgCkV+rz176rpbGTYY= =Sh2d -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-tKgLdTF/okvoG0yHcsSD--