Bug 114750 - font-arabic-misc-0.99.1 merge fails in postinst with FONT_DIRS is empty. The ebuild should set it to at least one subdir of /usr/share/fonts
Bug#: 114750 Product:  Gentoo Linux Version: unspecified Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux Status: RESOLVED Severity: normal Priority: P3
Resolution: FIXED Assigned To: x11@gentoo.org Reported By: fmccor@gentoo.org
Component: Ebuilds
URL: 
Summary: font-arabic-misc-0.99.1 merge fails in postinst with FONT_DIRS is empty. The ebuild should set it to at least one subdir of /usr/share/fonts
Keywords:  
Status Whiteboard: 
Opened: 2005-12-07 07:05 0000
Description:   Opened: 2005-12-07 07:05 0000
As per summary, on every system I've tried it on, the upgrade to
font-arabic-misc-0.99.1 fails in postinst.  Final output from merge is:
===================================
>>> Completed installing font-arabic-misc-0.99.1 into
/var/tmp/portage/font-arabic-misc-0.99.1/image/

>>> Merging media-fonts/font-arabic-misc-0.99.1 to /
/var/tmp/portage/font-arabic-misc-0.99.1/image/usr/share/fonts /var/tmp/portage
/var/tmp/portage
--- /usr/
--- /usr/share/
--- /usr/share/fonts/
>>> /usr/share/fonts/arabic24.pcf.gz
>>> /usr/share/fonts/fonts.scale
>>> /usr/share/fonts/fonts.dir
>>> Safely unmerging already-installed instance...
--- !mtime obj /usr/share/fonts/fonts.scale
--- !mtime obj /usr/share/fonts/fonts.dir
--- !mtime obj /usr/share/fonts/arabic24.pcf.gz
--- !empty dir /usr/share/fonts
--- !empty dir /usr/share
--- !empty dir /usr
 * Checking /usr/share/fonts/misc for useless files ...                        
         [ ok ]
>>> original instance of package unmerged safely.
 * FONT_DIRS is empty. The ebuild should set it to at least one subdir of
/usr/share/fonts.

!!! ERROR: media-fonts/font-arabic-misc-0.99.1 failed.
!!! Function setup_fonts, Line 272, Exitcode 0
!!! FONT_DIRS is empty. The ebuild should set it to at least one subdir of
/usr/share/fonts.
!!! If you need support, post the topmost build error, NOT this status message.

!!! FAILED postinst: 1
===========================================
So far, other fonts in 0.99.1 set do not have this problem.

------- Comment #1 From Donnie Berkholz 2005-12-07 10:00:15 0000 -------
Should be fixed