On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 12:32 PM, James E. Bailey < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Am 08.12.2008 um 19:06 schrieb Trevor Bača: > > On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 7:06 AM, james <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> After much searching, I found it. Fontbook installs user-installed fonts >> to a directory that isn't indexed by fontconfig ~/Library/Fonts. After I >> realised that, I knew to tell fontbook to install my fonts system-wide, >> apparently, osx doesn't use ~/.fonts/ which fontconfig does index. > > > Hi James, > > Glad everything worked out. I've had to solve this same problem a couple of > times under OS X 10.4 myself. The post here ... > > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2008-02/msg00087.html > > ... basically says "you can copy stuff to ~./fonts" to solve the problem. A > better solution is just sym linking, which Han-Wen points out later in the > thread. > > > Since I already have a solution that works for me, the question is pure > curiosity, but what's better about sym linking? And is that better than > telling fontbook to install fonts system-wide, or better than copying fonts > to ~/.fonts/ or both? > Linking would be better than copying because symbolic links consume (almost) no space. Your solution with FontBook may be better than both ... hard for me to evaluate because I'm kinda in the same position you are: I have a solution that works so I've stuck with it. Trevor. -- Trevor Bača [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
