[Pkg-fonts-devel] New conf.avail path causes a minor bug on many fonts packages.

[Christian PERRIER]

Quoting Paul Wise (pabs at debian.org):
> Does the location of the conf.avail files matter at all? AFAICT
> fontconfig only looks at the conf.d directory not the conf.avail
> direct.

Agreed. I'm also not convinced byt the (very few) arguments given in
the referenced links. Why shouldn't users be allowed to modify the
fontconfig files?

The only reason given in
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/fontconfig/2008-October/003030.html
is "we deploy policy through those fontconfig
files, we absolutely do not want users to change them (they're free to
un-reference the files in conf.d, or write their own fontconfig rules in
different files, but we instruct rpm to stomp on old versions of our
files on updates). Since we mark those files as non-modifiable (%config
and not %config(noreplace) in rpm speak) rpmlint considers them as data,
not configuration, and complains of their location under /etc."

In short : Fedora folks consider that these files should not be
user-modifiable, thus do not mark them as config files and thus it
breaks their tools.

*I* do not consider the files should not be user-modifiable. *I* am
not in position to decide what our users might want to do and,
therefore, I prefer allowing them to modify the files. And thus keep
them in /etc. At least, this is my feeling right now and I would thus
need to be convinced by skilled FHS/Debian wizards that the decision
to move the fontconfig files out of /etc is a good decision.

So, as of now, I'd say "hold on, please".


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-fonts-devel/attachments/20131231/08fc8633/attachment.sig>