From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dan Nicolaescu Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: colours in client on xterm (if an X frame is open at same time) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 23:13:51 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <201001080713.o087DpNv021759@godzilla.ics.uci.edu> References: <19270.28051.401596.689093@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <201001072358.o07NwL1e006325@godzilla.ics.uci.edu> <19270.54295.87807.81836@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1262934956 2292 80.91.229.12 (8 Jan 2010 07:15:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 07:15:56 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Ulrich Mueller Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jan 08 08:15:48 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1NT94W-0003ce-Hf for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 08 Jan 2010 08:15:48 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40165 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NT94W-00020x-No for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 08 Jan 2010 02:15:48 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NT94M-0001xt-53 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Jan 2010 02:15:38 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NT94G-0001qp-Gq for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Jan 2010 02:15:36 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=48937 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NT94G-0001qY-0r for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Jan 2010 02:15:32 -0500 Original-Received: from paul-mcgann-v0.ics.uci.edu ([128.195.1.147]:37469) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NT94F-0003BD-GH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Jan 2010 02:15:31 -0500 Original-Received: from godzilla.ics.uci.edu (godzilla.ics.uci.edu [128.195.10.101]) by paul-mcgann-v0.ics.uci.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o087DpR3028308 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 7 Jan 2010 23:13:51 -0800 Original-Received: (from dann@localhost) by godzilla.ics.uci.edu (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.6/Submit) id o087DpNv021759; Thu, 7 Jan 2010 23:13:51 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <19270.54295.87807.81836@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> (Ulrich Mueller's message of "Fri, 8 Jan 2010 07:43:35 +0100") Original-Lines: 24 X-ICS-MailScanner-Information: Please send mail to helpdesk@ics.uci.edu or more information X-ICS-MailScanner-ID: o087DpR3028308 X-ICS-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-ICS-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-1.44, required 5, autolearn=disabled, ALL_TRUSTED -1.44) X-ICS-MailScanner-From: dann@godzilla.ics.uci.edu X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:119650 Archived-At: Ulrich Mueller writes: > >>>>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010, Dan Nicolaescu wrote: > > > Green is not the default face for the modeline for any display, so > > something is strange in your setup. > > Right, this particular colour was taken from my X settings > ("*HighlightColor: DarkSeaGreen2"). I've repeated the test with empty > X resources, new screenshots are here: > > > Anyway, my point was, why are the colours _different_ in the second > case? Especially, why is the background grey? It should not be. I can't reproduce it here, but by emacs is about 2 weeks old. In the grey case, do you get something odd if you do a describe-face for the default face? Is this something new? Do you get the same behavior with 23.1? If not, then doing a binary search for the patch that broke it is your best bet...