Re: Format of -dshow-available-fonts output

[Urs Liska]

Am 25.07.2018 um 07:19 schrieb Federico Bruni:
> Il giorno mar 24 lug 2018 alle 21:37, Urs Liska 
> <address@hidden> ha scritto:
> > Am 24.07.2018 um 20:48 schrieb David Wright:
> > > On Tue 24 Jul 2018 at 18:50:27 (+0200), Urs Liska wrote:
> > >
> > > > Is it possible that the problem is due to an old fontconfig version
> > > > used by LilyPond? my Debian package is 2.13.0, the LilyPond
> > > > directory suggests a version 1.9.2 (is that possible?).
> > > Can you be a bit more specific about what versioning you mean.
> > > Here (Debian stretch):
> > >
> > >   david 270584 Jun 24 07:12 
> > > /home/david/lilypond-2.19.82-1/lilypond/usr/lib/libfontconfig.so.1.9.2
> > >   root  252968 Aug 24  2016 
> > > /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libfontconfig.so.1.8.0
> > >
> > > ii fontconfig 2.11.0-6.7+b1 amd64 generic font configuration library 
> > > - support binaries
> > > ii libfontconfig1:amd64 2.11.0-6.7+b1 amd64 generic font 
> > > configuration library - runtime
> > >
> > > It seems as if you're comparing package versions with library versions.
> >
> > Indeed, I don't really know what I'm talking about.
> > On my system I have installed
> >
> > $ apt show fontconfig
> > Package: fontconfig
> > Version: 2.13.0-5
> >
> > which includes a libfontconfig1 package of that same version.
> >
> > In my system directories I have:
> >
> > $ ls -l /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ | grep fontconfig
> > -rw-r--r--  1 root root   492422 Mai 14 10:32 libfontconfig.a
> > lrwxrwxrwx  1 root root       23 Mai 14 10:32 libfontconfig.so -> 
> > libfontconfig.so.1.11.1
> > lrwxrwxrwx  1 root root       23 Mai 14 10:32 libfontconfig.so.1 -> 
> > libfontconfig.so.1.11.1
> > -rw-r--r--  1 root root   273368 Mai 14 10:32 libfontconfig.so.1.11.1
> >
> > and within the LilyPond installation (like you)
> >
> > $ ls -l ~/software/lilypond/releases/2.19.82/usr/lib/ | grep fontconfig
> > -rwxr-xr-x  1 uliska uliska    1086 Jun 24 14:10 libfontconfig.la
> > lrwxrwxrwx  1 uliska uliska      22 Mai 20  2017 libfontconfig.so -> 
> > libfontconfig.so.1.9.2
> > lrwxrwxrwx  1 uliska uliska      22 Mai 20  2017 libfontconfig.so.1 
> > -> libfontconfig.so.1.9.2
> > -rwxr-xr-x  1 uliska uliska  270584 Jun 24 14:12 libfontconfig.so.1.9.2
> >
> > Am I right to think that LilyPond uses the bundled library (1.9.2?) 
> > while fc-list uses 1.11.1?
> > If so, would that be an explanation for the differences in the 
> > reported font names? Or could it be related to some code in LilyPond, 
> > how that *uses* fontconfig?
>
> As David wrote, you are still comparing library versions with 
> fontconfig versions.
> I think you should check what `fc-list --version` shows for each 
> installation. I don't think that library versioning matters.
>
> As an example, see the difference between the lilypond.org 2.18.2 
> packaged installed in /opt and my Fedora 2.19.82 package:
>
> [~]$ ls /opt/lilypond/usr/lib/ | grep fontconfig
> libfontconfig.la
> libfontconfig.so
> libfontconfig.so.1
> libfontconfig.so.1.4.4
>
> [~]$ ls /usr/lib64/ | grep fontconfig
> libfontconfig.so
> libfontconfig.so.1
> libfontconfig.so.1.11.1
>
>
>
> [~]$ /opt/lilypond/usr/bin/fc-list --version
> fontconfig version 2.8.0
>
> [~]$ fc-list --version
> fontconfig version 2.13.0

I'm not sure this is really relevant. The fact is that the libraries are 
*different*, so there's a difference. In my case the fc-list version 
from inside the LilyPond installation is 2.12.1

What *would* be interesting is to see the output from that "LilyPond 
fc-list", but that fails with "Fontconfig error: Cannot load default 
config file". Any idea how I can get that to run?

Urs