fontconfig madness

[Sam Fourman Jr.]

@Kevin

this is a bit off topic, but I heard somewhere that firefox can no longer
compile
on i386, because the compiler needs more than 4GB of memory... SO...
instead of switching the build servers to amd64(still building 32bit)
their fix was to "remove features"... so maybe they thought it was too
feature rich :)


On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Kevin Oberman <rkoberman at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Steve Kargl <
> sgk at troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 11:44:12AM +0200, Tijl Coosemans wrote:
> > > On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 12:27:45 -0700 Steve Kargl wrote:
> > > > I upgraded my freebsd-current system to  revision 254098
> > > > and followed this by deleting all installed ports except
> > > > pkg.  After rebuilding all ports, it seems fontconfig has
> > > > lost it mind (or someone made a chnage to where fontconfig
> > > > thinks it should cache fonts).  Every time I run acroread8
> > > > to view a pdf file, acroread8 creates a new fontconfig/
> > > > in the CWD instead of using ~/.fontconfig.  How do I (un)fix
> > > > whatever was changed?
> > > >
> > > > I seem to have the most up-to-date ports.
> > > >
> > > > % pkg info | grep fontconf
> > > > fontconfig-2.10.93,1           An XML-based font configuration API
> for
> > X Windows
> > > > linux-f10-fontconfig-2.6.0     An XML-based font configuration API
> for
> > X Windows (Linux Fedora 10)
> > > > % pkg version -vl '<' | grep fontconfig
> > >
> > > I see this too with every linux program that uses fontconfig.
> >
> > After a few hours of poking around, I've believe that I've
> > narrowed the issue down to a decision by the developers of
> > fontconfig to deprecate the default location ~/.fontconfig.
> > I added a /usr/local/etc/fonts/local.conf, which contains
> >
> > <cachedir prefix="~">.fontconfig</cachedir>
> >
> > to recover the old behavior
> >
>
> Steve,
>
> It seems like the term "madness" is entirely appropriate to such a change.
> Is there a commit log that you have found indicating that ti was
> deliberate? I am at a loss as to why such a change would be made. (I am
> also at a loss, even after reading all of the discussion, on why Mozilla
> decided to remove the "automatically load images" preference checkbox, so
> I'm not ruling anything out.)
>
> > --
> > Steve
> > _______________________________________________
> > freebsd-gnome at freebsd.org mailing list
> > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-gnome
> > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-gnome-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
> >
>
>
>
> --
> R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer
> E-mail: rkoberman at gmail.com
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-gnome at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-gnome
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-gnome-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>



-- 

Sam Fourman Jr.