[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 492510] Regression: wqy-bitmap-fonts preferred font over truetype fonts

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492510





--- Comment #60 from Qianqian Fang <fangqq at gmail.com>  2009-05-13 21:27:57 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #59)
> That may be the expected behaviour for you as you do in your fontconfig rule
> though, current behaviour isn't ideal and no one is happy with it. 

What do you mean by "no one is happy"? You don't speak for all CJK users I
believe. Only a few Japanese users were bothered previously, but with my
current fix, all Japanese Han glyphs were displayed properly with your
preferred vector fonts. The remaining characters should be decided by their
respective users.

> this would be true since you asked if wqy-zenhei-fonts is installed. I'd say again, what
> you should take an action to fix this completely would be:
> 
> 1. have a dependency in wqy-bitmap-fonts to ensure if wqy-zenhei-fonts is
> installed.

Please install wqy-zenhei-fonts by default then. As I said, I don't mind
removing wqy-bitmap-fonts in order to install wqy-zenhei, because ZenHei is the
"official" sans for Chinese, and SHOULD be installed.

> 
> 2. stop to depend on any other fonts in your rule and just leave it to other
> rules.

I said it already, it is NOT dependency! it is fallback! if you look into all
the current fontconfig files, many of the font names are not present by
default. By your logic, all of these should be removed, as they are dependent
to the the missing font package.

Indeed, if you want to make a synthetic font with your preferred fonts, you
HAVE TO explicitly mention other font's name. That is exactly what
wqy-bitmap-fonts is.

By the way, you should really blaming changing font names, rather than blaming
citing font names in config files. Changing a commonly used font name should be
done with extreme caution.

> 
> Your suggestion at comment #58 is just a workaround but not a solution. and you
> might see the same issue in the future. I'm afraid it's not a good idea.

Then, the best solution to me is my proposal in Bug#499902, but you don't like
either. The only solution is to follow exactly what you suggested. I don't
think we can work out this way.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.