From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: RE: bad tool-bar icons in Emacs 22.1 release Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 10:11:26 -0700 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1181409134 26670 80.91.229.12 (9 Jun 2007 17:12:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 17:12:14 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Lennart Borgman To: "Reiner Steib" , Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Jun 09 19:12:13 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Hx4U0-0001sR-K8 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 09 Jun 2007 19:12:12 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hx4Tz-0002u8-N4 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 09 Jun 2007 13:12:11 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Hx4Tx-0002to-Gt for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Jun 2007 13:12:09 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Hx4Tw-0002tQ-0q for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Jun 2007 13:12:08 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hx4Tv-0002tN-Re for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Jun 2007 13:12:07 -0400 Original-Received: from agminet01.oracle.com ([141.146.126.228]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Hx4Tv-00075o-HA for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Jun 2007 13:12:07 -0400 Original-Received: from rgmgw2.us.oracle.com (rgmgw2.us.oracle.com [138.1.186.111]) by agminet01.oracle.com (Switch-3.2.4/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id l59HC3S5032355; Sat, 9 Jun 2007 12:12:03 -0500 Original-Received: from acsmt351.oracle.com (acsmt351.oracle.com [141.146.40.151]) by rgmgw2.us.oracle.com (Switch-3.2.4/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id l59Gxsee004421; Sat, 9 Jun 2007 11:12:02 -0600 Original-Received: from dhcp-amer-whq-csvpn-gw3-141-144-80-33.vpn.oracle.com by acsmt350.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2882430651181409096; Sat, 09 Jun 2007 10:11:36 -0700 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 In-Reply-To: X-Whitelist: TRUE X-Whitelist: TRUE X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-detected-kernel: Linux 2.4-2.6 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:15805 Archived-At: > >> I'm not sure if this is what your asking for, but for nicer icons, you > >> need to install some image DLLs (see the README below). > > > > No, I wasn't looking for nicer icons (but thanks anyway). > > I was reporting a bug in the Emacs 22.1 release (with the > > default icons). > > The nicer color icons (GNOME/GTK/style; see e.g. etc/images/save.xpm) > are "the default icons" [1]. They only require external image > libraries whereas the monochrome PBM/PGM/PPM icons are supported by > natively by the Emacs binary w/o further libs (DLLs on Windows), see > the README file cited previously. > > [1] I'd consider the monochrome icons as a fallback e.g. for > monochrome displays. You might consider color to be the default, but for Windows, you don't get color by default - you must install external image libraries. You might consider B&W to be only a fallback for monochrome displays, but it is also the default installation for color displays on Windows: out of the box, that is, with just the downloaded zip or tar, you get B&W. If you follow additional instructions, performing additional steps (optional), then you can get color. To my understanding of "default", the default for Windows is B&W, not color. Nothing wrong with that, if it's unavoidable, but let's not pretend that the default is color if a user needs to jump through extra hoops (on Windows) to get color. BTW, when was the last time anyone saw Windows used with a monochrome display? This is one reason that I support the idea of an Emacs installer for Windows, such as the one Lennart Borgman supplies. Windows users are used to simply pushing a button to get something installed, perhaps answering yes or no a few times to simple customization questions, and perhaps changing a location or two - that's it. They are less used to digging out and reading READMEs with instructions about possibly downloading supplemental packages and installing them to obtain optional features. That happens sometimes, but it is not very common. It certainly doesn't happen for something as basic as color support. Wrt color: I've installed lots of programs on Windows, and I've never had to do anything special to get them to be color-able or color-aware. For many Windows users, this will reflect poorly on Emacs, I'm afraid, not on Windows. They see color everywhere in Windows, so they will not think this is something lacking in Windows - they will think that it is something lacking in Emacs. Which, in a sense, it is ;-). I don't use Lennart's installer myself, BTW, because AFAIK it bundles other things that I don't want, it sets up a version of server/client that I don't want, and it makes assumptions of where I want to put Emacs etc. Still, I think the idea of an installer is a good one, even if I personally use just a zip file of vanilla Emacs. (Please note the "AFAIK" - I haven't tried Lennart's installer in a while, and I might be mistaken about it.) > >> Looks like a bug. But I couldn't reproduce this when using > >> emacs-22.1-bin-i386.zip without further DLLs. > > > > Did you do just what I did? I downloaded and installed first the full > > Windows binary distrib (i.e. bin, not barebin), and then downloaded and > > installed the full source distrib, on top of the Windows binary > > distrib. See my description for details. > > No, I downloaded and unzipped emacs-22.1-bin-i386.zip. But I doubt > that it makes a difference WRT the misaligned icons. You might doubt it, and you might be right. But from your and my descriptions, that is the only difference between what we each did. Either our descriptions are incomplete or that difference is significant. To reproduce a bug, it's usually not a bad idea to follow the recipe provided ;-).