Le jeu 17/04/2003 à 22:16, Jim Gettys hp com a écrit : > Aaaarg! > > This seems pretty broken (or do you have an obsolte fontconfig installed > in /usr/local?). I get 2.1.94 when I as the version number from > either fc-list or fc-cache, that I installed earlier today from Keith's > latest tarball.... [nim rousalka nim]$ fc-cache -V fontconfig version 1.0.2 [nim rousalka nim]$ rpm -q fontconfig fontconfig-2.1-9 [nim rousalka nim]$ rpm -V fontconfig [nim rousalka nim]$ which fc-cache /usr/bin/fc-cache [nim rousalka nim]$ rpm -q --whatprovides /usr/bin/fc-cache fontconfig-2.1-9 That's : http://www.rpmfind.net/linux/RPM/redhat/9/i386/fontconfig-2.1-9.i386.html ie the official RH9 fontconfig (of course I could rebuild one from Keith sources but what would be the point ? this is the version most RH users will have for a long time) That is standard RH practice - build from one official version and then add patches (often from upstream cvs) till it's stabilized enough. I guess either they started from 1.0.2 or one of the included patches was made for this version and replaced the real version number. No big deal - they were among the first to offer me a fontconfiged setup and I won't begrudge them a slightly erroneous version number. So either we put the -f inconditionally or just use fc-cache the way it's supposed to work, considering most users won't hit the bug (and if lots of them did that would be reason enough to have distros release an errata) (cc-ing Owen Taylor since he seems to be RedHat's fonconfig maintainer) Cheers, -- Nicolas Mailhot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=