Bug 183576 - media-libs/fontconfig-2.4.2 claims to install /etc/fonts/fonts.conf.new but doesn't exist
Bug#: 183576 Product:  Gentoo Linux Version: 2006.1 Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux Status: RESOLVED Severity: trivial Priority: P2
Resolution: FIXED Assigned To: fonts@gentoo.org Reported By: alanh@fairlite.co.uk
Component: Ebuilds
URL: 
Summary: media-libs/fontconfig-2.4.2 claims to install /etc/fonts/fonts.conf.new but doesn't exist
Keywords:  
Status Whiteboard: 
Opened: 2007-06-28 19:54 0000
Description:   Opened: 2007-06-28 19:54 0000 
/etc/fonts/fonts.conf.new is listed in
/var/db/pkg/media-libs/fontconfig/CONTENTS but it isn't actually installed in
the system.

Reproducible: Always

------- Comment #1 From foser (RETIRED) 2007-06-29 14:58:31 0000 ------- 
It's a trick to circumvent the /etc config protection, it gets removed in
postinst. That's why it does show up in CONTENTS, but doesn't exist on the live
filesys. It's the same file as fonts.conf.

It's intended behaviour, not a bug.

------- Comment #2 From Alan Hourihane 2007-06-29 15:04:19 0000 ------- 
If it's listed in CONTENTS it should be installed. I'd class that as a bug.
Surely there's a way that CONTENTS should not pick it up.

------- Comment #3 From foser (RETIRED) 2007-06-29 15:11:57 0000 ------- 
Yeah we could postinst change CONTENTS too in /var too ... now that would be a
clean solution (*ugh*), but for what ? Is it really that big an issue to you ?

I do not class this as a bug obviously, it's just a creative approach to a
minor shortcoming in portage.

------- Comment #4 From Alan Hourihane 2007-06-30 20:01:00 0000 ------- 
then fix portage. I've got a build script which relies on the CONTENTS files
dictating what a package installs.

The script is barfing because this is the only package that claims to install
something and it doesn't.

------- Comment #5 From Ryan Hill 2007-06-30 20:37:10 0000 ------- 
a) /var/db/pkg is not guaranteed to be any sort of stable and can and will
change frequently.  scripts and such utilizing it directly are broken.  use the
tools provided (portage-utils, gentoolkit, etc.).

b) this is a pretty ugly hack.  why can't we just add fonts.conf to
CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK?

------- Comment #6 From Ryan Hill 2007-06-30 20:45:17 0000 ------- 
to answer my own question: since portage only got the ability to have
individual files in CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK last Sept.

------- Comment #7 From Alan Hourihane 2007-06-30 21:00:32 0000 ------- 
(In reply to comment #5)
> a) /var/db/pkg is not guaranteed to be any sort of stable and can and will
> change frequently.  scripts and such utilizing it directly are broken.  use the
> tools provided (portage-utils, gentoolkit, etc.).

Thanks for the reply Ryan. So what's the best tool to use to tell me what a
package has installed ?

------- Comment #8 From Ryan Hill 2007-06-30 21:41:22 0000 ------- 
qlist from portage-utils is very fast and gives output suitable for piping.  i
notice it too lists /etc/fonts/font.conf.new, but i don't know of any way to
override CONFIG_PROTECT for individual files other than the current hack, at
least until the required portage version is in stable for a while.

if you're doing the python thing, you might want to look at
/usr/lib/portage/bin/chkcontents for an example of how to read the CONTENTS
file through portage's API.

------- Comment #9 From Alan Hourihane 2007-07-03 09:59:40 0000 ------- 
Right, but any approach seems to list the /etc/fonts.conf.new file when it
doesn't exist.

So what's the best approach to fixing this in fontconfig's ebuild ??

------- Comment #10 From Alan Hourihane 2007-08-31 10:11:58 0000 ------- 
It'd be nice to fix this as per Ryan's comment #5 (b)

------- Comment #11 From Ryan Hill 2007-09-02 15:03:16 0000 ------- 
fontconfig-2.4.2 now installs /etc/env.d/37fontconfig which adds
/etc/fonts/fonts.conf to CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK, and no longer installs
/etc/fonts/fonts.conf.new.  I didn't bump the ebuild revision since there are
no user-visible changes (other than fonts.conf.new is no longer in CONTENTS).

Thanks Alan!