I think media-fonts/corefonts are not strictly required for x11-misc/slim to run. This dependency can be made optional through appropriate USE flag. Reproducible: Always
"Optional" runtime dependencies shouldn't be controlled via use flags, but either hardcoded or stated in a post install message.
(In reply to comment #1) > "Optional" runtime dependencies shouldn't be controlled via use flags, but > either hardcoded or stated in a post install message. > I can't find any recommendations here: http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/dependencies/index.html Can you point some additional guides on this topic? And what is the logic behind such restriction? I think sometimes it is useful to control runtime dependencies via USE flags. Anyway, in this particular case corefonts probably can be removed and only mentioned in postinstall hint. I'm recently switched my system to liberation fonts and slim is the only software that still pulls proprietary MS corefonts.
Created attachment 161256 [details] corefonts dependency removed I've removed dependency on corefonts from ebuild and added appropriate notice.
(In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #1) > Anyway, in this particular case corefonts probably can be removed and only > mentioned in postinstall hint. I'm recently switched my system to liberation > fonts and slim is the only software that still pulls proprietary MS corefonts. > It needs *some* fonts, right? Anyway, I have added to the URL field the thread I started with regards to this issue. This is not the first time I have seen such a thing.
> It needs *some* fonts, right? Anyway, I have added to the URL field the thread > I started with regards to this issue. This is not the first time I have seen > such a thing. Although I'm not very familiar with X11 font architecture, I think fonts can be located on server and/or client. In case of server side fonts, client probably should not require them.
(In reply to comment #5) > > It needs *some* fonts, right? Anyway, I have added to the URL field the thread > > I started with regards to this issue. This is not the first time I have seen > > such a thing. > > Although I'm not very familiar with X11 font architecture, I think fonts can be > located on server and/or client. In case of server side fonts, client probably > should not require them. > Max, the default theme uses verdana which is provided by corefonts. Since you don't have corefonts on your system, I am intrigued to know the output of: % fc-match verdana and % equery b <ttf file from above command) Thanks.
> Max, the default theme uses verdana which is provided by corefonts. Since you > don't have corefonts on your system, I am intrigued to know the output of: > % fc-match verdana Sorry, I no longer have access to that system with SLIM and above-mentioned font setup. But you are probably right and there was no proper Verdana replacement.
(In reply to comment #6) > Max, the default theme uses verdana which is provided by corefonts. Since you > don't have corefonts on your system, I am intrigued to know the output of: > % fc-match verdana > > and > > % equery b <ttf file from above command) Even though the original reporter can't help anymore, I tested this on my system. After unmerging corefonts, here's the output: $ fc-match verdana Vera.ttf: "Bitstream Vera Sans" "Roman" qfile (from portage-utils) and equery (gentoolkit) both list the same owning package: ttf-bitstream-vera Definitely doesn't seem need corefonts. If you're running a desktop, then bitstream (or one of the uglier-but-compatible font packages) gets pulled in anyway at some point, with or without a font virtual. I'm all for kicking out the explicit corefonts dep.
(In reply to comment #8) > (In reply to comment #6) > > Max, the default theme uses verdana which is provided by corefonts. Since you > > don't have corefonts on your system, I am intrigued to know the output of: > > % fc-match verdana > > > > and > > > > % equery b <ttf file from above command) > > Even though the original reporter can't help anymore, I tested this on my > system. After unmerging corefonts, here's the output: > > $ fc-match verdana > Vera.ttf: "Bitstream Vera Sans" "Roman" > > qfile (from portage-utils) and equery (gentoolkit) both list the same owning > package: > ttf-bitstream-vera > > Definitely doesn't seem need corefonts. If you're running a desktop, then > bitstream (or one of the uglier-but-compatible font packages) gets pulled in > anyway at some point, with or without a font virtual. I'm all for kicking out > the explicit corefonts dep. > Hey, cool. thanks. I'll removed the explicit dep then from 1.3.1-r1
