Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 00:40:46 +0100 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: linux vs freebsd fc-cache binaries Message-ID: <20041231004046.715eaea2@Magellan.Leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <1104447677.8767.3.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> References: <20041230195320.GA91304@xor.obsecurity.org> <41D46431.4000808@FreeBSD.org> <20041230203049.GA11245@xor.obsecurity.org> <41D46A22.5030906@FreeBSD.org> <20041230211112.GA20159@xor.obsecurity.org> <41D46FC0.5080603@FreeBSD.org> <20041230215331.GA29414@xor.obsecurity.org> <1104447677.8767.3.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 18:01:17 -0500
Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> 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 be
> 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.
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.
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.
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...
Bye,
Alexander.
--
If Bill Gates had a dime for every time a Windows box crashed...
...Oh, wait a minute, he already does.
http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net
GPG fingerprint = C518 BC70 E67F 143F BE91 3365 79E2 9C60 B006 3FE7
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041231004046.715eaea2>