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

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Paul Eggert <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 19889 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, rgm <at> gnu.org, Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> IRO.UMontreal.CA>
Subject: bug#19889: bug#22207: emacs-25 mishandles info code text on Fedora 23
Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 08:59:48 -0700

On 05/05/2016 11:49 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> If we are going to use such kludges, why not specify fonts explicitly
> in the defface to begin with?  After all, that's what your patch
> attempts to do, albeit indirectly, right?

The patch I proposed basically implements the suggestions Stefan made in 
<http://bugs.gnu.org/19889#6> and <http://bugs.gnu.org/19889#24>. Stefan 
was responding to Glenn’s original bug report, which suggests that it is 
not a good idea for a face definition to specify a font explicitly, due 
to portability problems on systems lacking the font. See the attachment 
to <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/684797> for an example of how verbatim 
text in TeX mode was displayed as little black boxes because TeX mode 
specifies an explicit font on a platform lacking it.

I am by no means an expert on Emacs fonts or on font technology in 
general. That being said, I would like to fix this blocking bug, and 
Stefan’s suggestion was the only concrete one on the table. If the patch 
is problematic, then is there a better way to fix this bug? More 
specifically: is it the introduction of ‘fixed-pitch-serif’ that you’re 
objecting to, or the addition of FreeMono and Nimbus Mono L as fonts to 
look for, or is it something else? Is there some way we could make the 
patch less kludgy, while still addressing Glenn’s and Stefan’s concerns?

Previous Next

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