Bug#684923: fontconfig-config: Please stop messing with my /etc
Hi Keith, intrigeri wrote (29 Oct 2012 21:19:47 GMT) : Otherwise, this patch seems fine to me. Nice job! Tagging patch accordingly: I propose we fix this bug that way, and clone/reassign/whatever to the policy if there's still disagreement, or need for clarification, on how to interpret the local changes to configuration files must not be overridden idea as far as symlinks are concerned. I intend to fix the #684923 RC bug with a NMU of fontconfig that would apply the proposed patch and the few improvements I suggested. Do you see any problem with the proposed solution, or have plans to fix it yourself, or see any other reason why a NMU would be a bad idea? Cheers, -- intrigeri | GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc | OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#684923: fontconfig-config: Please stop messing with my /etc
tags 684923 + patch thanks Hi, Andreas Metzler wrote (14 Oct 2012 06:49:10 GMT) : On 2012-09-29 Andreas Metzler ametz...@downhill.at.eu.org wrote: [...] It is just not yet documented. After reading this bug and #412159, I do concur. /usr/share/doc/fontconfig/README.Debian seems to be outdated. * /etc/fonts/conf.d/30-debconf-no-bitmaps.conf was the filename used in old versions of fontconfig ( 2.4.x?) * The package one needs to reconfigure is not fontconfig but fontconfig-config. * Link deletion is not supported. ... which would be implemented by attached tiny patch. +fontconfig-config (with dpkg-reconfigure fontconfig-config), or remove the +symbolic link /etc/fonts/conf.d/70-no-bitmaps.conf and add a symlink named I believe or remove the /etc/fonts/conf.d/70-no-bitmaps.conf symbolic link would be more correct, but I'm no native English speaker. +(cd /etc/fonts/conf.d/ rm -f 70-no-bitmaps.conf + ln -s ../conf.avail/70-yes-bitmaps.conf 70-yes-bitmaps.conf) I don't think the second argument to ln is needed at all. Otherwise, this patch seems fine to me. Nice job! Tagging patch accordingly: I propose we fix this bug that way, and clone/reassign/whatever to the policy if there's still disagreement, or need for clarification, on how to interpret the local changes to configuration files must not be overridden idea as far as symlinks are concerned. Cheers, -- intrigeri | GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc | OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#684923: fontconfig-config: Please stop messing with my /etc
Hi, Vincent Lefevre wrote (05 Sep 2012 08:59:59 GMT) : No, the fact that a symlink change (whether this is done manually or by a configuration via debconf) is not preserved after upgrade is not regarded as a RC bug. Quoting Steve Langasek[*]: Debian policy requires that local changes to configuration files are retained. This generally implies that packages should try to preserve configuration values represented in other ways (such as symlinks), but this is not a requirement of policy. And as I've pointed out, there are significant high-profile examples where admin changes to symlinks are not preserved. [*] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=412159#68 Policy 10.7.1 defines configuration file as A file that affects the operation of a program, or provides site- or host-specific information, or otherwise customizes the behavior of a program. I may be overlooking a part of Steve's analysis here, but I fail to see why a symlink would not fall into this category: the policy does not specify that a configuration file must be a regular file. However, yes, there are significant high-profiles examples of the contrary, that we've been living with quite well, so I guess the policy should be changed (or clarify, depends how one understands the current wording) to more clearly match the actual practice outlined by Steve in this quote of his. If this was discussed elsewhere, and a decision was made, please point me to it. I'm curious. Anyhow, as far as this specific bug is concerned, I concur with Andreas Metzler's analysis (non-buggy, but undocumented behaviour), and I will review his patch right away. Cheers, -- intrigeri | GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc | OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#684923: fontconfig-config: Please stop messing with my /etc
On 2012-09-29 Andreas Metzler ametz...@downhill.at.eu.org wrote: [...] It is just not yet documented. /usr/share/doc/fontconfig/README.Debian seems to be outdated. * /etc/fonts/conf.d/30-debconf-no-bitmaps.conf was the filename used in old versions of fontconfig ( 2.4.x?) * The package one needs to reconfigure is not fontconfig but fontconfig-config. * Link deletion is not supported. ... which would be implemented by attached tiny patch. cu andreas -- `What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are so grateful to you.' `I sew his ears on from time to time, sure' diff -Nru fontconfig-2.9.0/debian/changelog fontconfig-2.9.0/debian/changelog --- fontconfig-2.9.0/debian/changelog 2012-07-25 17:52:32.0 +0200 +++ fontconfig-2.9.0/debian/changelog 2012-10-14 08:48:28.0 +0200 @@ -1,3 +1,12 @@ +fontconfig (2.9.0-7.1) UNRELEASED; urgency=low + + * Non-maintainer upload. + * Update README.Debian with respect to enabling bitmapped fonts. Just +removing the no-bitmaps.conf symlink is not enough, the corresponding +symlink for yes-bitmaps.conf needs to be added. Closes: #684923 + + -- Andreas Metzler ametz...@debian.org Sun, 14 Oct 2012 08:21:18 +0200 + fontconfig (2.9.0-7) unstable; urgency=low * Don't clean ancient cache files on new install. Closes: #636173. diff -Nru fontconfig-2.9.0/debian/README.Debian fontconfig-2.9.0/debian/README.Debian --- fontconfig-2.9.0/debian/README.Debian 2012-04-16 20:35:08.0 +0200 +++ fontconfig-2.9.0/debian/README.Debian 2012-10-14 08:45:18.0 +0200 @@ -3,9 +3,12 @@ Recently, fontconfig changed to not include bitmapped fonts in the default font set. There is now a Debconf question about this. -If you wish to enable bitmapped fonts manually, either reconfigure this -package (with dpkg-reconfigure fontconfig-config), or remove the -symbolic link /etc/fonts/conf.d/30-debconf-no-bitmaps.conf +If you wish to enable bitmapped fonts manually, either reconfigure +fontconfig-config (with dpkg-reconfigure fontconfig-config), or remove the +symbolic link /etc/fonts/conf.d/70-no-bitmaps.conf and add a symlink named +70-yes-bitmaps.conf pointing to ../conf.avail/70-yes-bitmaps.conf. +(cd /etc/fonts/conf.d/ rm -f 70-no-bitmaps.conf + ln -s ../conf.avail/70-yes-bitmaps.conf 70-yes-bitmaps.conf) *
Bug#684923: fontconfig-config: Please stop messing with my /etc
On 2012-09-06 Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org wrote:
[...]
Let's assume you were talking about fontconfig's README.Debian instead;
it has:
| If you wish to enable bitmapped fonts manually, either reconfigure this
| package (with dpkg-reconfigure fontconfig-config), or remove the
| symbolic link /etc/fonts/conf.d/30-debconf-no-bitmaps.conf
(A) The filename is wrong.
(B) Removing the symlink is documented and not honored.
Hello,
I have stumbled upon this bug while browsing the rc-bug list. This
looks like a documentation issue to me.
Imho fontconfig-config does not abuse debconf as a registry. It basically
follows debconf-devel(7) to manage (inter alia)
/etc/fonts/conf.d/70-{no,yes}-bitmaps.conf. (With the significant
value being the filename, not where the link points to.):
fontconfig-config.config checks whether
/etc/fonts/conf.d/70-no-bitmaps.conf or
/etc/fonts/conf.d/70-yes-bitmaps.conf exist and sets the debconf value
accordingly. (Otherwise the value currently present in debconf-db is
used.) Then the debconf question is asked. postinst afterwards sets up
the link according to the debconf-db.
Which I would not consider buggy. If one does the correct thing (rm -f
/etc/fonts/conf.d/70-*-bitmaps.conf ln -s
/etc/fonts/conf.avail/70-no-bitmaps.conf /etc/fonts/conf.d/) the
change stays and propagates to debconf. It is just not yet documented.
/usr/share/doc/fontconfig/README.Debian seems to be outdated.
* /etc/fonts/conf.d/30-debconf-no-bitmaps.conf was the filename used in
old versions of fontconfig ( 2.4.x?)
* The package one needs to reconfigure is not fontconfig but
fontconfig-config.
* Link deletion is not supported.
cu andreas
--
`What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are
so grateful to you.'
`I sew his ears on from time to time, sure'
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#684923: fontconfig-config: Please stop messing with my /etc
Am 05.09.2012 10:32, schrieb Cyril Brulebois: Says which doc? None AFAICT. Does conf.d/README talk about debconf at all? Hell no. No, but it says If you wish to enable bitmapped fonts manually, either reconfigure this package (with dpkg-reconfigure fontconfig-config), or remove the symbolic link /etc/fonts/conf.d/30-debconf-no-bitmaps.conf which you did not follow, either. - Fabian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#684923: fontconfig-config: Please stop messing with my /etc
Fabian Greffrath fab...@greffrath.com (06/09/2012): Am 05.09.2012 10:32, schrieb Cyril Brulebois: Says which doc? None AFAICT. Does conf.d/README talk about debconf at all? Hell no. No, but it says If you wish to enable bitmapped fonts manually, either reconfigure this package (with dpkg-reconfigure fontconfig-config), or remove the symbolic link /etc/fonts/conf.d/30-debconf-no-bitmaps.conf which you did not follow, either. Verbatim copy of said file: | conf.d/README | | Each file in this directory is a fontconfig configuration file. Fontconfig | scans this directory, loading all files of the form [0-9][0-9]*.conf. | These files are normally installed in ../conf.avail and then symlinked here, | allowing them to be easily installed and then enabled/disabled by adjusting | the symlinks. | | The files are loaded in numeric order, the structure of the configuration | has led to the following conventions in usage: | | Files begining with: Contain: | | 00 through 09 Font directories | 10 through 19 system rendering defaults (AA, etc) | 20 through 29 font rendering options | 30 through 39 family substitution | 40 through 49 generic identification, map family-generic | 50 through 59 alternate config file loading | 60 through 69 generic aliases, map generic-family | 70 through 79 select font (adjust which fonts are available) | 80 through 89 match target=scan (modify scanned patterns) | 90 through 99 font synthesis Let's assume you were talking about fontconfig's README.Debian instead; it has: | If you wish to enable bitmapped fonts manually, either reconfigure this | package (with dpkg-reconfigure fontconfig-config), or remove the | symbolic link /etc/fonts/conf.d/30-debconf-no-bitmaps.conf (A) The filename is wrong. (B) Removing the symlink is documented and not honored. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#684923: fontconfig-config: Please stop messing with my /etc
Am 06.09.2012 12:37, schrieb Cyril Brulebois: (A) The filename is wrong. Yes, I am sorry I mixed up the file names. (B) Removing the symlink is documented and not honored. It's another symlink than the one you changed. Compare 70-yes-bitmaps.conf vs. 30-debconf-no-bitmaps.conf. But in the end, it's documented what fontconfig expects from its users in order to change this setting and explicit instructions are given. You tried to solve it differently and it failed on you. - Fabian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#684923: fontconfig-config: Please stop messing with my /etc
kibi@kathleen:/etc/fonts/conf.d$ ls -l 70-no-bitmaps.conf lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 33 Aug 14 21:11 70-no-bitmaps.conf - ../conf.avail/70-yes-bitmaps.conf Well, there's your problem. Obviously, you manually changed the symlink 70-no-bitmaps.conf to point to another file ../conf.avail/70-yes-bitmaps.conf. However, the symlinks are expected to point to files of the same name in the ../conf.avail directory. The fontconfig-config.config script checks for the presence of these symlinks and interprets them according to the meaning of their file name. So the presence of the symlink called 70-no-bitmaps.conf - regardless of the name or content of the file it points to - suggests fontconfig that you do not want bitmap fonts enabled. I think this is reasonable behaviour. Had you cared to rename the symlink to 70-yes-bitmaps.conf then the repeated configuration of fontconfig-config would have turned out as you expected. So, IMHO, this is not a release-critical bug but merely the result of misconfiguration by the user. Best Regards, Fabian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#684923: fontconfig-config: Please stop messing with my /etc
Fabian Greffrath fab...@greffrath.com (05/09/2012): Obviously, you manually changed the symlink 70-no-bitmaps.conf to point to another file ../conf.avail/70-yes-bitmaps.conf. However, the symlinks are expected to point to files of the same name in the ../conf.avail directory. Says which doc? None AFAICT. Does conf.d/README talk about debconf at all? Hell no. The fontconfig-config.config script checks for the presence of these symlinks and interprets them according to the meaning of their file name. So the presence of the symlink called 70-no-bitmaps.conf - regardless of the name or content of the file it points to - suggests fontconfig that you do not want bitmap fonts enabled. I think this is reasonable behaviour. Had you cared to rename the symlink to 70-yes-bitmaps.conf then the repeated configuration of fontconfig-config would have turned out as you expected. So, IMHO, this is not a release-critical bug but merely the result of misconfiguration by the user. I started with a removal of the symlink. That change (too) was lost by the upgrade process. This is a RC bug. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#684923: fontconfig-config: Please stop messing with my /etc
On 2012-09-05 10:32:45 +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Fabian Greffrath fab...@greffrath.com (05/09/2012): Obviously, you manually changed the symlink 70-no-bitmaps.conf to point to another file ../conf.avail/70-yes-bitmaps.conf. However, the symlinks are expected to point to files of the same name in the ../conf.avail directory. Says which doc? None AFAICT. Does conf.d/README talk about debconf at all? Hell no. I'd say that the conf.d/README file should be updated to mention that some symlinks may be managed by debconf. I started with a removal of the symlink. That change (too) was lost by the upgrade process. This is a RC bug. No, the fact that a symlink change (whether this is done manually or by a configuration via debconf) is not preserved after upgrade is not regarded as a RC bug. Quoting Steve Langasek[*]: Debian policy requires that local changes to configuration files are retained. This generally implies that packages should try to preserve configuration values represented in other ways (such as symlinks), but this is not a requirement of policy. And as I've pointed out, there are significant high-profile examples where admin changes to symlinks are not preserved. [*] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=412159#68 -- Vincent Lefèvre vinc...@vinc17.net - Web: http://www.vinc17.net/ 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: http://www.vinc17.net/blog/ Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#684923: fontconfig-config: Please stop messing with my /etc
On 2012-08-14 21:20:04 +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: /etc/fonts/conf.d/README pretends: ,--- | Each file in this directory is a fontconfig configuration file. Fontconfig | scans this directory, loading all files of the form [0-9][0-9]*.conf. | These files are normally installed in ../conf.avail and then symlinked here, | allowing them to be easily installed and then enabled/disabled by adjusting | the symlinks. `--- But that's simply not true! Well, it does not say *who* adjusts the symlinks (but I would say that configuration by symlinks is poor design, because it is difficult to track changes -- there are similar problems with init rc symlinks). kibi@kathleen:/etc/fonts/conf.d$ ls -l 70-no-bitmaps.conf lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 33 Aug 14 21:11 70-no-bitmaps.conf - ../conf.avail/70-yes-bitmaps.conf kibi@kathleen:/etc/fonts/conf.d$ sudo dpkg -i fontconfig-config_2.9.0-7_all.deb (Reading database ... 168698 files and directories currently installed.) Preparing to replace fontconfig-config 2.9.0-7 (using fontconfig-config_2.9.0-7_all.deb) ... Unpacking replacement fontconfig-config ... Setting up fontconfig-config (2.9.0-7) ... Processing triggers for man-db ... kibi@kathleen:/etc/fonts/conf.d$ ls -l 70-no-bitmaps.conf lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 40 Aug 14 21:11 70-no-bitmaps.conf - /etc/fonts/conf.avail/70-no-bitmaps.conf Glancing at the postinst, that might be due to your retrieving values from debconf and overwriting administrator's files based on those. There's an inconsistency with: -- debconf information: fontconfig/subpixel_rendering: Automatic fontconfig/hinting_type: Native fontconfig/enable_bitmaps: false ^ Debconf is not a registry, please don't lose administrator's changes. IMHO, the administrator did something bad by modifying something that is handled by debconf. If dpkg didn't reinstall the file, the administrator could complain that debconf says that bitmaps are disabled while this is not the case, and see this as a bug. Without debconf, this would be a dup of bug 412668. -- Vincent Lefèvre vinc...@vinc17.net - Web: http://www.vinc17.net/ 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: http://www.vinc17.net/blog/ Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#684923: fontconfig-config: Please stop messing with my /etc
Vincent Lefevre vinc...@vinc17.net (04/09/2012): kibi@kathleen:/etc/fonts/conf.d$ ls -l 70-no-bitmaps.conf lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 40 Aug 14 21:11 70-no-bitmaps.conf - /etc/fonts/conf.avail/70-no-bitmaps.conf Glancing at the postinst, that might be due to your retrieving values from debconf and overwriting administrator's files based on those. There's an inconsistency with: -- debconf information: fontconfig/subpixel_rendering: Automatic fontconfig/hinting_type: Native fontconfig/enable_bitmaps: false ^ Debconf is not a registry, please don't lose administrator's changes. IMHO, the administrator did something bad by modifying something that is handled by debconf. If dpkg didn't reinstall the file, the administrator could complain that debconf says that bitmaps are disabled while this is not the case, and see this as a bug. Since you don't seem to understand “debconf is not a registry”, please go read Debian Policy 10.7.3. What's stored in debconf doesn't matter. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#684923: fontconfig-config: Please stop messing with my /etc
On 2012-09-04 20:15:49 +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Since you don't seem to understand “debconf is not a registry”, please go read Debian Policy 10.7.3. What's stored in debconf doesn't matter. Debian Policy 10.7.3 has nothing about debconf and nothing about your bug. -- Vincent Lefèvre vinc...@vinc17.net - Web: http://www.vinc17.net/ 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: http://www.vinc17.net/blog/ Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#684923: fontconfig-config: Please stop messing with my /etc
Package: fontconfig-config Version: 2.9.0-7 Severity: serious Justification: debconf is not a registry Hi, given I like the Fixed font, I got rid of the following file a while ago: /etc/fonts/conf.d/70-no-bitmaps.conf Restarting my X session today, no more Fixed! And indeed, that file is back. /etc/fonts/conf.d/README pretends: ,--- | Each file in this directory is a fontconfig configuration file. Fontconfig | scans this directory, loading all files of the form [0-9][0-9]*.conf. | These files are normally installed in ../conf.avail and then symlinked here, | allowing them to be easily installed and then enabled/disabled by adjusting | the symlinks. `--- But that's simply not true! kibi@kathleen:/etc/fonts/conf.d$ ls -l 70-no-bitmaps.conf lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 33 Aug 14 21:11 70-no-bitmaps.conf - ../conf.avail/70-yes-bitmaps.conf kibi@kathleen:/etc/fonts/conf.d$ sudo dpkg -i fontconfig-config_2.9.0-7_all.deb (Reading database ... 168698 files and directories currently installed.) Preparing to replace fontconfig-config 2.9.0-7 (using fontconfig-config_2.9.0-7_all.deb) ... Unpacking replacement fontconfig-config ... Setting up fontconfig-config (2.9.0-7) ... Processing triggers for man-db ... kibi@kathleen:/etc/fonts/conf.d$ ls -l 70-no-bitmaps.conf lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 40 Aug 14 21:11 70-no-bitmaps.conf - /etc/fonts/conf.avail/70-no-bitmaps.conf Glancing at the postinst, that might be due to your retrieving values from debconf and overwriting administrator's files based on those. Debconf is not a registry, please don't lose administrator's changes. Mraw, KiBi. -- System Information: Debian Release: wheezy/sid APT prefers testing APT policy: (500, 'testing') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Foreign Architectures: i386 Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-3-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Versions of packages fontconfig-config depends on: ii debconf [debconf-2.0] 1.5.44 ii fonts-freefont-ttf [ttf-freefont] 20120503-1 ii ttf-dejavu-core2.33-2 ii ttf-freefont 20120503-1 ii ucf3.0025+nmu3 fontconfig-config recommends no packages. fontconfig-config suggests no packages. -- debconf information: fontconfig/subpixel_rendering: Automatic fontconfig/hinting_type: Native fontconfig/enable_bitmaps: false -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
