Looks good to me.
Masayoshi
On 9/24/2016 2:00 PM, Philip Race wrote:
1) version change is only if the format is incompatible - so no change
there.
2) paths being absent is not a new issue. It has always been the case
that a
file is not present on a system at runtime. This was historically ver
+1
Vadim
On 24.09.2016 8:00, Philip Race wrote:
1) version change is only if the format is incompatible - so no change
there.
2) paths being absent is not a new issue. It has always been the case
that a
file is not present on a system at runtime. This was historically very
common. The
implem
1) version change is only if the format is incompatible - so no change
there.
2) paths being absent is not a new issue. It has always been the case that a
file is not present on a system at runtime. This was historically very
common. The
implementation should handle this.
-phil.
On 9/23/16, 8
The changes looks fine, should we increment version=1 to other version
or it is not used? Unrelated question is how we validate all these paths
if some of them are absent?
On 23.09.16 8:08, Philip Race wrote:
PING .. any takers on this two week old RFR ?
-phil.
On 9/8/16, 1:12 PM, Philip Rac
PING .. any takers on this two week old RFR ?
-phil.
On 9/8/16, 1:12 PM, Philip Race wrote:
[Fix i18n-dev address]
-phil.
On 9/8/16, 1:10 PM, Philip Race wrote:
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8162531
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~prr/8162531/
Solaris 10 is not supported
[Fix i18n-dev address]
-phil.
On 9/8/16, 1:10 PM, Philip Race wrote:
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8162531
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~prr/8162531/
Solaris 10 is not supported by JDK 9.
This updates the fontconfig file to focus on the default set of fonts
installed on S
