Missing a font

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:36:20 +0200, Petter Adsen <petter at synth.no> wrote:
> AFAIK, all distros reserve /usr/local for local modifications. It has
> always been done this way on *nix systems. Your package manager
> maintains the /usr tree, except /usr/local, and can/will thus
> overwrite or remove changes you make on updates. Modifications you make
> should either go in there or under your home directory.
> ~/.local/share/fonts would probably work, if you are only setting it up
> for yourself.

That's a half-truth. Stuff that's installed by the admin and that isn't  
part of a package, shouldn't be touched and even config files,  
mirror-lists etc. never should be overwritten or removed.
For example https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Pacnew_and_Pacsave_files.  
It's the same for modules build with e.g. dkms and, surprise, for fonts  
that are installed to the pool of fonts and that's true for e.g. Debian  
and Ubuntu too.

I prefer usage of /usr/local, because it's easier for me to stay on top of  
things, however, using a sane package management installing a font to  
/usr/ instead of /usr/local/ never ever will cause issues. JFTR a sane  
package management allows users to build packages on their own, without  
profound knowledge of rocket science, so another solution would be  
building a package for those fonts.

Btw. the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard always is in progress, so "It has  
always been done this way on *nix systems" regarding recommendations how  
to handle the FHS are questionable. I don't know how most GUIs for  
installing font's handle it nowadays, since I don't use them, but I  
remember a few years back, some installed fonts to the same tree, where  
the packages installed the fonts. Having just one directory tree, one pool  
for the fonts IMO is better than to scatter fonts to different locations.  
And placing fonts to $HOME seldom makes sense.

2 Cents,
Ralf