search

germanhmartinez / font-manager

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/font-manager
GNU General Public License v3.0
1 stars 0 forks source link

Upgrade from v.0.5.7-4 changed user fonts directory structure and filenames #88

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
When I started the new, great version I was given some warning about the 
transition process, but when I had a look at my fonts folder at "~/.fonts" (or 
"~/.local/share/fonts" which the former is linked to) it was something 
unexpected, although fairly harmless:
1. Most fonts were grouped under specific folders, which looked OK, but it was 
a bit far from being flawless (e.g. some MS fonts not included in that 
directory,  some fonts mistakenly included in a directory for Mono fonts while 
some weren't, etc.)
2. Many font files were duplicated as a result of renaming them based on font 
name, family, weight, etc., and this also included links to MS fonts in my WINE 
installation (~/.wine/drive_c/windows/Fonts).

Fortunately, after I corrected all, and restarted the Font Manager 
(v.0.7-0~239~ubuntu14.04.1), it didn't make any changes again.

I think it might be a good idea to try and rename font files with better names, 
and create a better directory structure, but as it is a rather complicated job, 
perhaps it might be a better idea not to make any changes in the font directory 
structures or file names.

Anyway, many thanks for this new version :-)

Original issue reported on code.google.com by SadiYumu...@gmail.com on 26 Jun 2014 at 8:48

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Hmm. Well, I definitely haven't done any testing on a system that has Wine 
installed, so I can't comment on that.

As far as the directory structure it is based on the font metadata, so while 
you may consider it a Microsoft font it may not advertise itself as such.

The idea is really for users to not worry about the actual file and filenames, 
where they're stored, etc. I should say goal, since exporting isn't implemented 
yet.

The important thing is that you didn't lose anything. :-)

Duplicates are an issue, but checking for that is on the to-do list.

I'll leave this open for a few to see if anyone else has issues.

Thanks.

Original comment by JerryCasiano on 26 Jun 2014 at 3:01

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

Original comment by JerryCasiano on 20 Sep 2014 at 11:30