Rationale for the linux-fontconfig change in the gnome 2.18 update?

[Joe Marcus Clarke]

On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 21:02 +0400, Boris Samorodov wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 12:21:47 -0400 Joe Marcus Clarke wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 19:31 +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> 
> > > I would like to know the rationale for the install of a custom
> > > fonts.conf instead of linking to the FreeBSD one as before.
> > > 
> > > Are the config files incompatible and if yes which version of
> > > fontconfig do we need at least to be compatible? I would prefer to
> > > update the fontconfig somehow instead of installing a custom fonts.conf
> > > file.
> 
> > They are very different in 2.4.  There is no longer one config file.
> > Instead, they are loaded like rc.d scripts in an ordered fashion from
> > etc/fonts/conf.d.  That said, I see no reason why the linux-fontconfig
> > port could not be updated to 2.4.2 as well.
> 
> ...exept the reason that there is only fontconfig-2.2.3 for FC4?

Ah.

Joe

> 
> 
> WBR
-- 
PGP Key : http://www.marcuscom.com/pgp.asc
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-gnome/attachments/20070325/85e89426/attachment.pgp