Comment 101 for bug 502610

Just for my two cents,

(In reply to comment #82)
> I don't like 60-latin.conf either but on a Fedora system we've made it mostly
> irrelevant. (I suppose we could also make your new files irrelevant, probably
> not what you want)

+1. I don't like either of the rules that contains a kind of the priority list things. from the POV of distributors or packagers, it's harmful for tuning. it sometimes affects unexpectedly. getting rid of them would makes really happier as long as you have well-tuned separate config files.

From the POV of upstream, I suppose providing the easy-use configuration would be important though, that should keeps as just an example IMHO.

> As I've stated (many times) my primary constraint is to have a smooth packaging
> flow where any font can be picked up by a packager and packaged quickly and
> independently. And the result is full-featured, not "it almost works but the
> remaining bits need integration by the fontconfig maintainer in its master
> files". We have one fontconfig maintainer who is awesome but also real busy
> working on all the text stack, whereas we have one packager per font package,
> and spreading the work as much as possible is basic common sense.

I agree with you. plus, this issue is more closer to the preference issue. since fontconfig supports to have separate config files, people could do that in your machine or in your distribution. deciding shipped default configuration in fontconfig according to a little people's preference or the discussions with a little people makes no sense. having different configuration in fontconfig is more likely than other software. ideally the fonts upstream should ships fontconfig config files for their fonts but shouldn't be done in fontconfig for the specific fonts.