Fontconfig - Feb 2010 - Proposal: the restructure of the configuration numeric prefix

Hi,

I''d like to bring this topic up here to get more idea and feedbacks on
it, making it better. let me explain the background first to see why I
want to see this change in upstream. an RFE for this is also available
on bugzilla [1].

Background

fontconfig upstream now has some recommendation [2] to put the
configuration files under /etc/fonts/conf.d to get them applied
efficiently. this kind of documentation would be useful to not mess up
the system and get it working expectedly.
Aside from that, Fedora also has similar policy for the priority [3]
to improve the cases of where some fonts for the different languages
are installed on the system.
As you may be aware of, Fedora''s policy overrides some numeric prefix
defined in upstream. and we are facing an issue that 65-nonlatin.conf
prevents to get some rules working properly. particularly it''s harmful
for the font that contains some script which is likely to use for
different languages, such as Indic etc. it may looks like a issue that
should be fixed in Fedora. however I''d like to see some improvements
in upstream as well since there are no margins in upstream''s
definition [2] to override any behaviour on the user-side or the
distributors.

Proposal

IMHO ideally any specific font configuration should be provided by the
font vendor or upstream. though providing the instant configuration or
fallbacks for convenience in fontconfig upstream may be good, however
it would be good to appear at the end to not prevent their
configurations.

Hence I''d like to classify the rough prefixes for stakeholders:
000~199 ... reserved area of fontconfig upstream for minimal sets of
the configurations
            such as: 10-*.conf, 50-user.conf and so on
            any configuration files that contains the specific font
names shouldn''t be put in this area.
300~499 ... reserved area of the system administrators
600~799 ... reserved area of the distributors
900~    ... reserved area of fontconfig upstream for convenience configurations

Anyway, the point is to add some spaces for the users and distributors
between the minimal sets of the configurations and the actual rules in
upstream that contains any font names. this would let the
users/distributors allow to determine the behaviours prior to
upstream''s. though one who maintains any fontconfig configuration
files needs to update the numeric prefix after that, the idea itself
won''t breaks anything unless someone puts something in the range of
300~799 in the above case.

Any thoughts or comments are welcome.

Thanks in advance,

[1] ... http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26504
[2] ... http://cgit.freedesktop.org/fontconfig/tree/conf.d/README
[3] ... http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fontconfig_packaging_tips
-- 
Akira TAGOH

On 02/15/2010 04:36 AM, Akira TAGOH wrote:
> Hence I''d like to classify the rough prefixes for stakeholders:
> 000~199 ... reserved area of fontconfig upstream for minimal sets of
> the configurations
>              such as: 10-*.conf, 50-user.conf and so on
>              any configuration files that contains the specific font
> names shouldn''t be put in this area.
> 300~499 ... reserved area of the system administrators
> 600~799 ... reserved area of the distributors
> 900~    ... reserved area of fontconfig upstream for convenience
configurations
>
>    
why not make the numeric prefix a float?

the proposed approach only expand the name space by 10x,
but accepting floating numbers can expand it at least
10^7x~10^8x, and will still be compatible with the
existing structure (I assume the changes to the code
will also be minimal).

Qianqian

>>>>> "Akira" == Akira TAGOH <akira at tagoh.org>
writes:
Akira> As you may be aware of, Fedora''s policy overrides some
numeric
Akira> prefix defined in upstream. and we are facing an issue that
Akira> 65-nonlatin.conf prevents to get some rules working properly.

If fedora has problems with any of the upstream conf files, it should
simply not link them into conf.d.

There is no need to restructure upstream to appease one distribution.

In fact, there is no need for fedora ? or any other dist ? to link in
any of the upstream config files.  Dists can and should modify configs
to suit their and their users? own needs.

-JimC
-- 
James Cloos <cloos at jhcloos.com>         OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6

On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 8:34 AM, James Cloos <cloos at jhcloos.com>
wrote:
>>>>>> "Akira" == Akira TAGOH <akira at
tagoh.org> writes:
>
> Akira> As you may be aware of, Fedora''s policy overrides some
numeric
> Akira> prefix defined in upstream. and we are facing an issue that
> Akira> 65-nonlatin.conf prevents to get some rules working properly.
>
> If fedora has problems with any of the upstream conf files, it should
> simply not link them into conf.d.
Right. this is however one of example to explain why the restructure
is needed. I was just saying that current structure can potentially
introduces any issues at the downstream, including the end users who
has the own config files there.
Also the fontconfig configuration system is quite sensitive and it''s
easy to break if one puts the config files with the wrong ordering in
even current recommendation say. so IMHO it may be still worth
improving current structure with other way though.
> There is no need to restructure upstream to appease one distribution.
>
> In fact, there is no need for fedora ? or any other dist ? to link in
> any of the upstream config files. ?Dists can and should modify configs
> to suit their and their users? own needs.
For a kind of the preference yes. though it would be a good idea if
changing in upstream makes everyone happy. but I''m not talking about
it here.
>
> -JimC
> --
> James Cloos <cloos at jhcloos.com> ? ? ? ? OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6
> _______________________________________________
> Fontconfig mailing list
> Fontconfig at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/fontconfig
>


-- 
Akira TAGOH

On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 1:25 AM, Qianqian Fang
<fangq at nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> wrote:
> On 02/15/2010 04:36 AM, Akira TAGOH wrote:
>>
>> Hence I''d like to classify the rough prefixes for
stakeholders:
>> 000~199 ... reserved area of fontconfig upstream for minimal sets of
>> the configurations
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? such as: 10-*.conf, 50-user.conf and so on
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? any configuration files that contains the specific font
>> names shouldn''t be put in this area.
>> 300~499 ... reserved area of the system administrators
>> 600~799 ... reserved area of the distributors
>> 900~ ? ?... reserved area of fontconfig upstream for convenience
>> configurations
>>
>>
>
> why not make the numeric prefix a float?
>
> the proposed approach only expand the name space by 10x,
> but accepting floating numbers can expand it at least
> 10^7x~10^8x, and will still be compatible with the
> existing structure (I assume the changes to the code
> will also be minimal).
Sure. if so much namespaces are really necessary. from my experience,
it may depends how many fallbacks are needed. I guess two or three may
be enough? so just thought 2 digits namespaces may be sufficient for
stakeholders.
>
> Qianqian
>


-- 
Akira TAGOH

On 02/15/2010 06:34 PM, James Cloos wrote:
> If fedora has problems with any of the upstream conf files, it should
> simply not link them into conf.d.
> 
> There is no need to restructure upstream to appease one distribution.
> 
> In fact, there is no need for fedora ? or any other dist ? to link in
> any of the upstream config files.  Dists can and should modify configs
> to suit their and their users? own needs.
I''m hugely interested in making the upstream configuration just work
though.
No point in shipping default conf that sane distros are not going to use.

behdad
> -JimC