On Mon, 3 Nov 2025 21:58:56 GMT, Phil Race <[email protected]> wrote: >> src/java.desktop/unix/classes/sun/font/FcFontConfiguration.java line 320: >> >>> 318: } >>> 319: try { >>> 320: File f = new File("/etc/os-release"); >> >> Don't we need to check "/usr/lib/os-release" as well? >> https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/latest/os-release.html >>>The file /etc/os-release takes precedence over /usr/lib/os-release. >>>Applications should check for the former, and exclusively use its data if it >>>exists, and only fall back to /usr/lib/os-release if that is missing. >>>Applications should not combine the data from both files. >>>/usr/lib/os-release is the recommended place to store OS release information >>>as part of vendor trees. /etc/os-release should be a relative symlink to >>>/usr/lib/os-release, to provide compatibility with applications only looking >>>at /etc/. A relative symlink instead of an absolute symlink is necessary to >>>avoid breaking the link in a chroot or initrd environment. > > I'd considered that. Taking the wording above, which encourages apps to > check /etc first, and that every system I've checked has an /etc/os-release, > and that it isn't a big deal even if we fail to find it unless you are > creating a custom fontconfig file, I saw no need.
But still, according to that document, the correct location for storing the file is /usr/lib/os-release, while /etc/xx is only a compatibility workaround. Since we’ve already moved from an unspecified or non-standard behavior to the standard one, why not follow the specification completely? ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/28073#discussion_r2488027729
