Bug 251451

Summary: symlink broken & owned by many packages
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Mamoru TASAKA <mtasaka>
Component: xorg-x11-fontsAssignee: Kristian Høgsberg <krh>
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: mcepl, xgl-maint
Target Milestone: ---Keywords: EasyFix
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2007-09-25 15:55:11 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 252268    

Description Mamoru TASAKA 2007-08-09 05:54:01 UTC
Description of problem:
According to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureNoMoreXFS
now some font packages have symlinks in %_sysconfdir/X11/fontpath.d

However on my system some of them are broken and there is a case
that one symlink is owned by many packages

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
(for srpm:) xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-1-75dpi

How reproducible:
[root@localhost ~]# pushd /etc/X11/fontpath.d/
/etc/X11/fontpath.d ~ ~

[root@localhost fontpath.d]# LANG=C ls -al
total 40
drwxr-xr-x  2 root root 4096 Jun 28 03:13 .
drwxr-xr-x 18 root root 4096 Aug  7 13:41 ..
lrwxrwxrwx  1 root root   36 Jun 28 03:13 fonts-default ->
/usr/share/fonts/default/ghostscript
lrwxrwxrwx  1 root root   35 Jun 26 14:02 xorg-x11-fonts-75dpi:unscaled:pri=20
-> /usr/share/X11/fonts/75dpi:unscaled
lrwxrwxrwx  1 root root   36 Jun 26 14:02 xorg-x11-fonts-100dpi:unscaled:pri=30
-> /usr/share/X11/fonts/100dpi:unscaled
lrwxrwxrwx  1 root root   24 Jun 26 14:01 xorg-x11-fonts-TTF ->
/usr/share/X11/fonts/TTF
lrwxrwxrwx  1 root root   26 Jun 26 14:01 xorg-x11-fonts-Type1 ->
/usr/share/X11/fonts/Type1
lrwxrwxrwx  1 root root   34 Jun 26 14:00 xorg-x11-fonts-misc:unscaled:pri=10 ->
/usr/share/X11/fonts/misc:unscaled
[root@localhost fontpath.d]# LANG=C ls -al '/usr/share/X11/fonts/75dpi:unscaled'
'/usr/share/X11/fonts/100dpi:unscaled' '/usr/share/X11/fonts/misc:unscaled'
ls: cannot access /usr/share/X11/fonts/75dpi:unscaled: No such file or directory
ls: cannot access /usr/share/X11/fonts/100dpi:unscaled: No such file or directory
ls: cannot access /usr/share/X11/fonts/misc:unscaled: No such file or directory
[root@localhost fontpath.d]# rpm -qf 'xorg-x11-fonts-75dpi:unscaled:pri=20'
xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-15-75dpi-7.2-1.fc8
xorg-x11-fonts-75dpi-7.2-1.fc8
xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-1-75dpi-7.2-1.fc8
xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-14-75dpi-7.2-1.fc8
[root@localhost fontpath.d]# rpm -qf 'xorg-x11-fonts-100dpi:unscaled:pri=30'
xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-14-100dpi-7.2-1.fc8
xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-15-100dpi-7.2-1.fc8
xorg-x11-fonts-100dpi-7.2-1.fc8
xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-1-100dpi-7.2-1.fc8

Here 3 symlinks are broken, and more that one package own
one symlink.
  

Expected results:
* symlinks must not be broken
* one symlinks must be owned by only one package

Comment 1 Mamoru TASAKA 2007-08-09 05:55:59 UTC
(In reply to comment #0)
> Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
> (for srpm:) xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-1-75dpi

Oops.. this is xorg-x11-fonts-7.2-1.fc8

Comment 2 Mamoru TASAKA 2007-08-15 17:15:40 UTC
Also, xorg-x11-fonts related packages should not own
the directory /etc/X11/fontpath.d itself (bug 251707)

Comment 3 Mamoru TASAKA 2007-09-19 16:33:12 UTC
ping? IMO this must be fixed before F8T3.

Comment 4 Adam Jackson 2007-09-25 15:55:11 UTC
They're not real symlinks.  They only exist to be readlink()'d, not to be
followed.  That the :unscaled symlinks don't point to real directories is not a bug.

Likewise, it's completely correct that multiple packages own some of the
symlinks.  Multiple packages install into the target directories, and need to
make sure the symlinks exist so that their fonts get picked up.

This isn't a bug.  It's by design.

Comment 5 Matěj Cepl 2007-11-21 10:52:33 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 390171 ***