| 1 |
On Fri, 30 May 2003 15:03:39 +0200 |
| 2 |
Terje Kvernes <terjekv@××××××××.no> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> if a working tool exists, is it really worth rewriting the tool just |
| 5 |
> to remove popt as a dependency? actually, to me it seems that |
| 6 |
> you're removing popt and adding perl as a dependency. :-) |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
The xfree ebuild as it currently stands has perl as a dependency for the font generation stuff anyway, so it is not adding anything new. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> > So the idea he and I discussed was to have this utility (or set of |
| 12 |
> > utilities) to update the fontpaths in /etc/X11/fs/config as well as |
| 13 |
> > /etc/X11/XF86Config (IF the font path is other than unix:/7100 in |
| 14 |
> > that file). |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> is this something chkfontpath already does, or something |
| 17 |
> Gentoo-specific and new? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
The latter. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> [ ... ] |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> now, as for policy... when you install a font, you probably want it |
| 24 |
> to be available for X. then again, it's sort of the same thing with |
| 25 |
> a daemon, and rc-update. a common behavior is a good thing, even if |
| 26 |
> it requires some monotonous user action every time. as long as the |
| 27 |
> behavior is well documented, I don't see a big problem it. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
More or less agree with this. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
> -- |
| 33 |
> Terje |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> -- |
| 36 |
> gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
Seemant Kulleen |
| 43 |
Developer and Project Co-ordinator, |
| 44 |
Gentoo Linux http://www.gentoo.org/~seemant |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x3458780E |
| 47 |
Key fingerprint = 23A9 7CB5 9BBB 4F8D 549B 6593 EDA2 65D8 3458 780E |
Archives