From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#19889: bug#22207: emacs-25 mishandles info code text on Fedora 23 Date: Fri, 06 May 2016 22:01:48 +0300 Message-ID: <83futvf1sz.fsf@gnu.org> References: <56744F95.20307@cs.ucla.edu> <951925e4-e3ed-0367-721a-7241546f4013@cs.ucla.edu> <3u37pwfb2n.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <838tznhe9v.fsf@gnu.org> <9e47cf3a-8a15-f0d0-66db-4fffb7dcee38@cs.ucla.edu> <83inyrf6lw.fsf@gnu.org> <4201e7d9-9143-b02b-909d-8665d32d6eae@cs.ucla.edu> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1462561429 15464 80.91.229.3 (6 May 2016 19:03:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 19:03:49 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 19889@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA To: Paul Eggert Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri May 06 21:03:34 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ayl2E-00008w-5O for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 06 May 2016 21:03:34 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:59862 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ayl2A-00060M-Fn for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 06 May 2016 15:03:30 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48635) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ayl20-0005lL-Ul for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 06 May 2016 15:03:27 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ayl1l-0000wj-8k for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 06 May 2016 15:03:11 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:57938) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ayl1l-0000w7-5l for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 06 May 2016 15:03:05 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ayl1h-0001iH-LI for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 06 May 2016 15:03:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 06 May 2016 19:03:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 19889 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 19889-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B19889.14625613306529 (code B ref 19889); Fri, 06 May 2016 19:03:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 19889) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 May 2016 19:02:10 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42042 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ayl0s-0001hF-1P for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 06 May 2016 15:02:10 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:57461) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ayl0q-0001h0-G5 for 19889@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 06 May 2016 15:02:08 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ayl0b-0000f8-M5 for 19889@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 06 May 2016 15:02:00 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:49947) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ayl0P-0000b7-J2; Fri, 06 May 2016 15:01:41 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:3134 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1ayl0I-0006WN-VS; Fri, 06 May 2016 15:01:35 -0400 In-reply-to: <4201e7d9-9143-b02b-909d-8665d32d6eae@cs.ucla.edu> (message from Paul Eggert on Fri, 6 May 2016 11:24:14 -0700) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 208.118.235.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:117928 Archived-At: > Cc: rgm@gnu.org, 19889@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA > From: Paul Eggert > Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 11:24:14 -0700 > > On 05/06/2016 10:18 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > We could specify the font explicitly. > > > >> >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 > > The latter. I see that as a (perhaps complicated and a bit > > unreliable) way of specifying a font which we know we want to get as > > result. If so, why not specify the font explicitly? > > The problem is, which font to specify explicitly? Not all platforms have > a font named "Courier". Mine doesn't (Fedora 23). If we knew that all > Emacs platforms had an appropriate font (Courier, or FreeMono, or Nimbus > Mono L, or whatever), we could specify that font, but I do not know of > any such font, nor do I know how to query arbitrary platforms for such a > font. I'm aware of the issue, but I very much doubt there are too many variants out there. We could enumerate them all, and try one after another, or even do it specifically for each platform. Which is more or less what your patch does, isn't it? > In further testing on my Fedora 23 host I discovered another suitable > anti-aliased font, Courier 10 Pitch. So why do you say above you don't have Courier? > It is also a free font and looks a bit better with emacs -Q, and > Wikipedia says Courier 10 Pitch BT is the default Courier font on > many GNU/Linux hosts > . > So I will update my proposed patch to prefer Courier 10 Pitch to the > alternatives already in the list. We could systematically review the most popular platforms (how many are there, anyway?), and simply state a font or a couple of them for each platform. And I won't be surprised if all of them mostly use the same fonts, even if some of them aren't necessarily present sometimes. IOW, I prefer naming fonts rather than asking for them via families.