Quoting Nathan Willis (2026-08-07 16:10:43) > On Fri, Aug 7, 2026 at 2:42 PM Jonas Smedegaard <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > More important than file size is whether the two formats use same font > > identifiers, so that font systems like fontconfig cannot reliably > > distinguish between them: If that is the case, then I believe they need > > to either be packaged in separate binary packages that conflict with > > each other, or installed *outside* of the normal font area and then > > provide some mechanism at package install time to choose which set gets > > symlinked into the font area. > > > > If you're referring to the patterns used by fc-match, there certainly > appears to be enough differentiation between the two build outputs to do > that. E.g., using the various `hint`/`hinting` keys. > > Possibly also `fontformat`, but I rather suspect that in the real world > there's a lot of confusion lurking there (which is why I posited -tt- and > -cff- in the moot package names; steering clear of the file-extension at > least helps). At present, the files do seem to use different extensions, so > fc-match *could* currently lean on that, as-is; I just think it's not > recommendable as a way to identify font internals anymore, so finding other > keys is better. > > Anyway, I certainly agree that detailed matching would be great; I just > also think that _also_ pushing more detail into the names of font packages > would be even more plusgreat. > > OTOH, if you're just referring to the `name`-table entries, that's probably > doable, but I haven't checked those myself.
I am referring to the font name as identified by fontconfig. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
