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@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:
- 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.
- 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.