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

Previous Next

Packages: w32, emacs;

Reported by: "Drew Adams" <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>

Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 22:11:02 UTC

Severity: normal

Done: Chong Yidong <cyd <at> stupidchicken.com>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


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.





This bug report was last modified 15 years and 102 days ago.

Previous Next


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