Hi Leo, et al, On +2020-05-08 14:08:51 -0400, Leo Famulari wrote: > On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 10:59:46AM +0200, Marius Bakke wrote: > > Just to be clear, these programs are able to find fonts you have > > installed through Guix, right? > > They can find the font packages I install with Guix, but not the > hard-coded PostScript fonts. > > > > The specific fonts in question are the URW fonts, aka the "PostScript > > > fonts", provided by Debian's gsfonts and gsfonts-x11 packages. > > > > Are those the only affected fonts? > > I looked more closely, and Guix applications can no longer see *any* > fonts from Debian. > > > > $ fc-cache -rv > > > > [...] > > > > > /home/leo/.local/share/fonts: caching, new cache contents: 0 fonts, 0 dirs > > > /home/leo/.local/share/fonts: failed to write cache > > > > [...] > > > > > /home/leo/.fonts: caching, new cache contents: 0 fonts, 0 dirs > > > /home/leo/.fonts: failed to write cache > > > > [...] > > > > > fc-cache: failed > > > > FWIW the new fc-cache fails for me on Guix System too if I create these > > empty directories. > > Confirmed. fc-cache exited successfully when I removed those directories. > > > Can you inspect 'fc-list ' with the new and old fontconfig? Are there > > differences? > > The only differences, after running `fc-cache -rfv`, are the differing > store paths of the hard-coded gs-fonts package. > > Another thing I noticed is that I can do `fc-cache -rfv /usr/share/fonts > && fc-list`, and the hundreds of fonts found in that directory are *not > shown* in fc-list, but that's the same as on the master branch. > > So, I'm still not sure what the difference is.
Didn't I just see a permissions-related bug reminiscent of this go by a short while ago? Could it be related? Do the dir/file perms look normal? -- Regards, Bengt Richter
