Hi,
any opinions? If this port isn't useful in its current shape, I'll just
add the urw-fonts to lilyponds DISTFILES.
Ciao,
Kili
On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 09:05:22PM +0200, Matthias Kilian wrote:
> Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2022 21:05:22 +0200
> From: Matthias Kilian <[email protected]>
> To: Matthieu Herrb <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected], abdullah uyu <[email protected]>
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: new: fonts/urw-base35-fonts
>
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 10:44:01AM +0200, Matthieu Herrb wrote:
> > > This new port is (kind of) needed to update print/lilypond to the
> > > newest stable version. If it's not wanted, I could as well add it
> > > to lilyponds DISTFILES, because the fonts needed by lilypond are
> > > copied during the lilypond build, so fonts/urw-base35-fonts would
> > > just be a BUILD_DEPENDS of lilypond.
> > >
> > > In case I may import it, what about the fontconfig files contained in
> > > the distfile? Should I include them? If so, should they go into
> > > /etc/fonts/conf.avail?
> >
> > Probably yes, but look at fontconfig/README.md in the distfile.
> > The best is ihmo to install them with symlinks called 61-*.conf (as
> > suggested in the readme).
> >
> > I would maybe install the real files in /usr/local/share/fontconfig
> > and just create the links in /etc/fonts/conf.d, [...]
>
> New tarball attached. Notes:
>
> - I put the fontconfig files into a port-specific subdirectory
> share/fontconfig/urw-base35-fonts, just in case another port will come
> up with fontconfig files.
>
> - I've no idea how to create the symlinks in /etc/fonts/conf.d at
> install time; adding a directory with the symlinks and installing them
> with @sample lines in the PLIST doesn't work as expected (they end up
> as regular files in /etc/fonts/conf.d); simple @exec ln -s ... / @unexec rm
> ... seems dangerous, because this wouldn't check wether the symlinks
> are still the same as during installation; and adding a script that
> creates or removes the symlinks and using that with @exec / @unexec
> looks like overkill to me.
>
> Ciao,
> Kili
>
> ps: for ease of read, here's a diff to the previous version I sent:
>
> diff -rup fonts/urw-base35-fonts-v1/Makefile fonts/urw-base35-fonts/Makefile
> --- fonts/urw-base35-fonts-v1/Makefile Thu Aug 18 20:12:07 2022
> +++ fonts/urw-base35-fonts/Makefile Sun Aug 21 21:59:56 2022
> @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ COMMENT = (URW)++ base 35 font set
> TYPEFACE = urw-base35-fonts
>
> GH_ACCOUNT = ArtifexSoftware
> -GH_PROJECT = urw-base35-fonts
> +GH_PROJECT = ${TYPEFACE}
> GH_TAGNAME = 20200910
>
> MAINTAINER = Matthias Kilian <[email protected]>
> @@ -18,5 +18,12 @@ FONT_DISTSUBDIR = fonts
>
> NO_BUILD = Yes
> NO_TEST = Yes
> +
> +FC_DIR = ${PREFIX}/share/fontconfig/${TYPEFACE}
> +do-install:
> + ${MODFONT_do-install}
> + ${INSTALL_DATA_DIR} ${FC_DIR}
> + cd ${WRKSRC}/fontconfig && \
> + ${INSTALL_DATA} *.conf ${FC_DIR}
>
> .include <bsd.port.mk>
> diff -rup fonts/urw-base35-fonts-v1/pkg/PLIST fonts/urw-base35-fonts/pkg/PLIST
> --- fonts/urw-base35-fonts-v1/pkg/PLIST Thu Aug 18 20:12:30 2022
> +++ fonts/urw-base35-fonts/pkg/PLIST Sun Aug 21 22:00:07 2022
> @@ -1,3 +1,18 @@
> +share/fontconfig/
> +share/fontconfig/urw-base35-fonts/
> +share/fontconfig/urw-base35-fonts/urw-bookman.conf
> +share/fontconfig/urw-base35-fonts/urw-c059.conf
> +share/fontconfig/urw-base35-fonts/urw-d050000l.conf
> +share/fontconfig/urw-base35-fonts/urw-fallback-backwards.conf
> +share/fontconfig/urw-base35-fonts/urw-fallback-generics.conf
> +share/fontconfig/urw-base35-fonts/urw-fallback-specifics.conf
> +share/fontconfig/urw-base35-fonts/urw-gothic.conf
> +share/fontconfig/urw-base35-fonts/urw-nimbus-mono-ps.conf
> +share/fontconfig/urw-base35-fonts/urw-nimbus-roman.conf
> +share/fontconfig/urw-base35-fonts/urw-nimbus-sans.conf
> +share/fontconfig/urw-base35-fonts/urw-p052.conf
> +share/fontconfig/urw-base35-fonts/urw-standard-symbols-ps.conf
> +share/fontconfig/urw-base35-fonts/urw-z003.conf
> share/fonts/
> @fontdir share/fonts/urw-base35-fonts/
> share/fonts/urw-base35-fonts/C059-BdIta.afm
