bug#5659: 23.1.92; bad toolbar icons, smaller default frame size

bug#5659: 23.1.92; bad toolbar icons, smaller default frame size

[Drew Adams]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 230 bytes --]

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).


[-- Attachment #2: throw-bug-toolbar-and-window-size.PNG --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 91732 bytes --]

bug#5659: 23.1.92; bad toolbar icons, smaller default frame size

[Drew Adams]

> 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'

bug#5659: 23.1.92; bad toolbar icons, smaller default frame size

[Chong Yidong]

> 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.

bug#5659: 23.1.92; bad toolbar icons, smaller default frame size

[Drew Adams]

> 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.

bug#5659: 23.1.92; bad toolbar icons, smaller default frame size

[Lennart Borgman]

On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Drew Adams <drew.adams@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?

bug#5659: 23.1.92; bad toolbar icons, smaller default frame size

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 01:22, Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman@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

bug#5659: 23.1.92; bad toolbar icons, smaller default frame size

[Lennart Borgman]

On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 1:46 AM, Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 01:22, Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman@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.

bug#5659: 23.1.92; bad toolbar icons, smaller default frame size

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman@gmail.com>
> Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 01:22:16 +0100
> Cc: Chong Yidong <cyd@stupidchicken.com>, 5659@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.