GNU bug report logs - #5659
23.1.92; bad toolbar icons, smaller default frame size

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 5659 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 5659 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: "Drew Adams" <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: <emacs-pretest-bug <at> gnu.org>
Subject: 23.1.92; bad toolbar icons, smaller default frame size
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 14:01:32 -0800

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

emacs -Q

See attached screenshot, which shows the pretest on the left and the last
release, 23.1, on the right. As the screenshot shows:

1. The toolbar icons are without color.
2. The frame size has been reduced (fewer lines).

[throw-bug-toolbar-and-window-size.PNG (image/png, attachment)]

Message #8 received at 5659 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: "Drew Adams" <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: <5659 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Subject: RE: bug#5659: 23.1.92; bad toolbar icons, smaller default frame size
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 14:30:04 -0800

> emacs -Q
> 
> See attached screenshot, which shows the pretest on the left 
> and the last release, 23.1, on the right. As the screenshot shows:
> 
> 1. The toolbar icons are without color.
> 2. The frame size has been reduced (fewer lines).

Forgot to include the version info (bitten again by bug #5299).

In GNU Emacs 23.1.92.1 (i386-mingw-nt5.1.2600)
 of 2010-02-20 on LENNART-69DE564
Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 5.1.2600
configured using `configure --with-gcc (3.4) --no-opt --cflags -Ic:/g/include
-fno-crossjumping'

Message #13 received at 5659 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Chong Yidong <cyd <at> stupidchicken.com>
To: "Drew Adams" <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Cc: 5659 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: 23.1.92; bad toolbar icons, smaller default frame size
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2010 13:19:56 -0500

> emacs -Q
>
> See attached screenshot, which shows the pretest on the left and the last
> release, 23.1, on the right. As the screenshot shows:
>
> 1. The toolbar icons are without color.
> 2. The frame size has been reduced (fewer lines).

(1) is probably due to Lennart compiling without proper image library
support.  (2) is intentional, see Bug#3643.

Message #16 received at 5659 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: "Drew Adams" <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: "'Chong Yidong'" <cyd <at> stupidchicken.com>
Cc: 'Lennart Borgman' <lennart.borgman <at> gmail.com>, 5659 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: RE: 23.1.92; bad toolbar icons, smaller default frame size
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 10:46:57 -0800

> From: Chong Yidong Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 10:20 AM
> > See attached screenshot, which shows the pretest on the 
> > left and the last release, 23.1, on the right.
> > As the screenshot shows:
> >
> > 1. The toolbar icons are without color.
> > 2. The frame size has been reduced (fewer lines).
> 
> (1) is probably due to Lennart compiling without proper image library
> support.  (2) is intentional, see Bug#3643.

Ccing Lennart as an FYI for #1.

The bug #3643 thread is very long; apologies if this is addressed somewhere
there - I didn't find it:

The OP complained about the Emacs 23 frame height, contrasting it with the Emacs
22 case. IIUC, he had no problem with the Emacs 22 size.

So isn't his problem rightfully regarded as a regression wrt Emacs 22?

However, when I use emacs -Q in both Emacs 22.3 and 23.1 the frame sizes are
identical. (I'm using Windows.)

From what I see, it is only the Emacs 23.2 pretest that has a shorter frame from
both Emacs 22 and 23.1.

My screen resolution is 1280 x 1024 (for both cases).
(I'm using as "pretest": GNU Emacs 23.1.92.1 (i386-mingw-nt5.1.2600)
 of 2010-02-20 on LENNART-69DE564).

Why does jidanni see a difference between 22 and 23, and I do not? Is this
platform-dependent? Is it just a resolution difference?

What is wrong with returning to the Emacs 22 appearance, which jidanni confirms
was OK?

I don't really object to the shorter frame, but I don't understand why, if Emacs
22 was OK, we have moved to yet another appearance. Why not just return to what
Emacs 22 did?

Anyway, you can close this bug, I guess. Thx.

Message #21 received at 5659 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman <at> gmail.com>
To: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Cc: Chong Yidong <cyd <at> stupidchicken.com>, 5659 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: 23.1.92; bad toolbar icons, smaller default frame size
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 01:22:16 +0100

On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com> wrote:
>> From: Chong Yidong Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 10:20 AM
>> > See attached screenshot, which shows the pretest on the
>> > left and the last release, 23.1, on the right.
>> > As the screenshot shows:
>> >
>> > 1. The toolbar icons are without color.
>> > 2. The frame size has been reduced (fewer lines).
>>
>> (1) is probably due to Lennart compiling without proper image library
>> support.


Yes. The unpatched binaries are compiled without image support.

What happens if I compile them with image support and the user does
not have the image DLL libraries?

Message #24 received at 5659 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Juanma Barranquero <lekktu <at> gmail.com>
To: Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 5659 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#5659: 23.1.92; bad toolbar icons, smaller default frame size
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 01:46:28 +0100

On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 01:22, Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman <at> gmail.com> wrote:

> What happens if I compile them with image support and the user does
> not have the image DLL libraries?

Nothing, except that the image types won't be available. See docstring
for variable `image-library-alist'.

    Juanma

Message #27 received at 5659 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman <at> gmail.com>
To: Juanma Barranquero <lekktu <at> gmail.com>, Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>, 
	Chong Yidong <cyd <at> stupidchicken.com>
Cc: 5659 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#5659: 23.1.92; bad toolbar icons, smaller default frame size
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 01:51:43 +0100

On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 1:46 AM, Juanma Barranquero <lekktu <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 01:22, Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What happens if I compile them with image support and the user does
>> not have the image DLL libraries?
>
> Nothing, except that the image types won't be available. See docstring
> for variable `image-library-alist'.


Ok, thanks. Then I will compile the unpatched Emacs binaries too with
image support.

Message #30 received at 5659 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman <at> gmail.com>
Cc: cyd <at> stupidchicken.com, 5659 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, drew.adams <at> oracle.com
Subject: Re: bug#5659: 23.1.92; bad toolbar icons, smaller default frame size
Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2010 06:17:44 +0200

> From: Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 01:22:16 +0100
> Cc: Chong Yidong <cyd <at> stupidchicken.com>, 5659 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> What happens if I compile them with image support and the user does
> not have the image DLL libraries?

Nothing bad, but the binary distribution should always include at
least the libxpm.dll, which is necessary for the color tool-bar icons.

Previous Next

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