On Wed Jun 19 08:36:49 2024 Marc Espie wrote:
> Like many people, I want to have the noto fonts around for web content,
> because I often browse wikipedia and unicode pages, but it is a definitive
> impediment for the font requester in creation programs.
>
> The fontconfig format is somewhat poorly documented, it's decently hard to
> put together something that works from the documentation, yes, even with
> examples.
>
> Anyhow, I cobbled together something like this, as /etc/fonts/local.conf
>
> <fontconfig>
>     <match target="pattern">
> 	<test qual="all" name="prgname" target="pattern" compare="eq">
> 	    <or>
> 		<string>gimp</string>
> 		<string>libreoffice</string>
> 	    </or>
> 	</test>
> 	<rejectfont>
> 		<glob>/usr/local/share/fonts/noto/*</glob>
> 	</rejectfont>
>     </match>
> </fontconfig>
>
> which does make sure both libreoffice and gimp do NOT see the 50+ fonts
> that are useless for them.
>
> [...]
>
>

This is just a comment.  I've been so annoyed by all this fontconfig
dance that at some point, many years ago, I decided to add this to my
profile:

  export FONTCONFIG_FILE=/home/<user>/.config/fontconfig/fonts.conf

And take my own decisions from there at user level.

Basically in my configuration file I make all scalable fonts visible for
all applications, in addition to just the Fixed bitmap fonts.  From
there, whatever the packagers do in /etc/fonts has no longer affected
me.

What makes me recall this issue:

  https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-bugs&m=165962957502166&w=2

And what I was told here:

  https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-bugs&m=165988242608178&w=2

I understand that from the point of view of a developer to be able to
configure which fonts are available in your system is a "fancy feature".
Since I see you are worried about gimp or libreoffice I assume you don't
think like that.


-- 
Walter