GNU bug report logs - #19889
tex-verbatim face: don't specify :family?

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: help-debbugs <at> gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: Paul Eggert <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu>
Cc: tracker <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#19889: closed (tex-verbatim face: don't specify :family?)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 21:34:01 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Your message dated Fri, 13 May 2016 14:33:17 -0700
with message-id <f24ccc11-07f8-bb90-bb9a-89408bfd25f5 <at> cs.ucla.edu>
and subject line Re: bug#19889: bug#22207: emacs-25 mishandles info code text on Fedora 23
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #19889,
regarding tex-verbatim face: don't specify :family?
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs <at> gnu.org.)


-- 
19889: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=19889
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems

[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
To: submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: tex-verbatim face: don't specify :family?
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 15:39:45 -0500

Package: emacs
Version: 24.4
Severity: minor

The tex-verbatim face is defined as

   '((t :family "courier"))

Is this a good idea?

AFAICS, it is the only face definition in Emacs that specifies a :family.
It seems to cause problems on some systems, see:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=684797


For me on RHEL7, that faces looks poor (blocky/pixellated) compared to
the other faces Emacs uses.

[Message part 3 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Paul Eggert <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 19889-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org, rgm <at> gnu.org, monnier <at> IRO.UMontreal.CA
Subject: Re: bug#19889: bug#22207: emacs-25 mishandles info code text on
 Fedora 23
Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 14:33:17 -0700

On 05/07/2016 10:27 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> I don't mind the change,
> but I'd urge others to try the patch and see if it causes any
> problems.

I installed the patch into master, to get the ball rolling on that.

Although I had been thinking of installing the patch into emacs-25, I 
see that Bug#19759 no longer lists 19889 or 22207 as blockers, which 
means emacs-25 is not a suitable place for the patch. (Bug#22207 was a 
blocker but I could not reproduce it and so closed it on May 5.)

Bug#19889 says it blocks 19759 as of 2015-12-18 and there is no 
indication it was ever unblocked. Conversely, Bug#19759 does not 
currently list Bug#19889 as a blocker; I don't know why not. If 
Bug#19889 is supposed to still be a blocker, then the patch should be 
backported from master to emacs-25.

At any event Bug#19889 seems to be fixed in master, so I am boldly 
closing it now; if this is wrong we can always reopen it of course.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.