[PATCH libXfont] Add a new 'catalogue' FPE, which takes font paths from symlinks in a dir.

[Colin Guthrie]

Eamon Walsh wrote:
> Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
>> Oh, and if nobody objects or suggests improvements within the next
>> couple of days, I'll commit it an cut a libXfont release.  There,
>> you've been warned.
> 
>  From another mail:
> 
>  > +    75dpi:unscaled:pri=20 \-> /usr/share/X11/fonts/75dpi
>  > +    ghostscript:pri=60 \-> /usr/share/fonts/default/ghostscript
>  > +    misc:unscaled:pri=10 \-> /usr/share/X11/fonts/misc
>  > +    type1:pri=40 \-> /usr/share/X11/fonts/Type1
>  > +    type1:pri=50 \-> /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1
> 
> 
> What is the point of putting the font name (fixed, 75dpi, whatever) in 
> the symlink name.  It's evident from the symlink destination.
> 
> If unscaled is the only option, why not simplify the symlink name to 
> <priority>[unscaled], i.e.
> 
> 20unscaled \-> /usr/share/X11/fonts/75dpi
> 60 \-> /usr/share/fonts/default/ghostscript
> 10unscaled \-> /usr/share/X11/fonts/misc
> 40 \-> /usr/share/X11/fonts/Type1
> 50 \-> /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1
> 
> This would clean things up a lot.

Well what's to say two separate font-providing packages don't pick the
same priority?

By putting the name in there, you are at least reducing the potential
for overlap and IMO it gives a quick glance look at the order and fonts
loaded without having to dereference all the symlinks (although I can't
fault your logic there!).

I was also a bit confused as to why priority wasn't listed first tho' -
would mean it could just be processed in alphabetical file order (unless
I've misread and pri is optional - I thought it was mandatory?)

Col