Re: bad tool-bar icons in Emacs 22.1 release

Re: bad tool-bar icons in Emacs 22.1 release

[Reiner Steib]

[ Shifting this from bug-gnu-emacs to emacs-devel: ]

On Mon, Jun 11 2007, Jason Rumney wrote:
> Richard Stallman wrote:
>>     Whether distributing third party libraries from ftp.gnu.org is
>>     a good idea, or allowable, is a different question.
>>
>> If it is just a few libraries, it is ok as long as we check
>> their licenses carefully to make sure we do not violate them.
>
> OK. Here is the license for libxpm, which is the most important for the
> color versions of the tool-bar and other images that are a standard part
> of Emacs. I think including just this library is enough to satisfy most
> users, but that is open to discussion. If others think JPEG, PNG, TIFF
> and GIF support are important enough to include, we can look at those
> licenses and consider patent issues (for GIF at least, I don't think the
> patents have expired in all jurisdictions yet) separately.

On Tue, Jun 12 2007, Richard Stallman wrote:

> There is no problem distributing the source code for libxpm.  If we
> distribute the binary, then we need to include this license with it,
> and we should distribute the source too as a matter of general principle.

Is there any news on this issue?

Bye, Reiner.
-- 
       ,,,
      (o o)
---ooO-(_)-Ooo---  |  PGP key available  |  http://rsteib.home.pages.de/

Re: bad tool-bar icons in Emacs 22.1 release

[Jan Djärv]

Reiner Steib skrev:
> [ Shifting this from bug-gnu-emacs to emacs-devel: ]
> 
> On Mon, Jun 11 2007, Jason Rumney wrote:
>> Richard Stallman wrote:
>>>     Whether distributing third party libraries from ftp.gnu.org is
>>>     a good idea, or allowable, is a different question.
>>>
>>> If it is just a few libraries, it is ok as long as we check
>>> their licenses carefully to make sure we do not violate them.
>> OK. Here is the license for libxpm, which is the most important for the
>> color versions of the tool-bar and other images that are a standard part
>> of Emacs. I think including just this library is enough to satisfy most
>> users, but that is open to discussion. If others think JPEG, PNG, TIFF
>> and GIF support are important enough to include, we can look at those
>> licenses and consider patent issues (for GIF at least, I don't think the
>> patents have expired in all jurisdictions yet) separately.

PNG is important.  If we want Emacs to change icons when the Gnome/Gtk+ theme 
changes, Emacs will then use PNG icons.  Most (all?) Gnome/Gtk+ icons are in 
PNG format.  But this is code that Gtk+ loads dynamically with dlopen, so 
Emacs itself does not know that PNG is used.  Not sure if that affects the 
license issue?

	Jan D.

Re: bad tool-bar icons in Emacs 22.1 release

[Reiner Steib]

On Sat, Jun 30 2007, Jan Djärv wrote:

>> On Mon, Jun 11 2007, Jason Rumney wrote:
[...]
>>> OK. Here is the license for libxpm, which is the most important for the
>>> color versions of the tool-bar and other images that are a standard part
>>> of Emacs. I think including just this library is enough to satisfy most
>>> users, but that is open to discussion. If others think JPEG, PNG, TIFF
>>> and GIF support are important enough to include, we can look at those
>>> licenses and consider patent issues (for GIF at least, I don't think the
>>> patents have expired in all jurisdictions yet) separately.
>
> PNG is important.  If we want Emacs to change icons when the Gnome/Gtk+ theme
> changes, Emacs will then use PNG icons.  Most (all?) Gnome/Gtk+ icons are in
> PNG format.  But this is code that Gtk+ loads dynamically with dlopen, so
> Emacs itself does not know that PNG is used.  Not sure if that affects the
> license issue?

But this isn't relevant to the issue at hand (the binary distribution
of Emacs 22 for Windows on <ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/emacs/windows>), is
it?

Probably it wasn't clear from the quoted context: The binaries on
<ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/emacs/windows> don't include DLLs required to
display XPM (tool bar), PNG, JPEG and other images in Emacs.  The user
needs to download them separately from several(?) third party sites as
explained in <ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/emacs/windows/README>.  Else, the
user only gets (ugly) monochrome PBM/PGM/PPM icons, as shown in the
first screen shot in
<http://article.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.bugs/15800>.

Bye, Reiner.
-- 
       ,,,
      (o o)
---ooO-(_)-Ooo---  |  PGP key available  |  http://rsteib.home.pages.de/

Re: bad tool-bar icons in Emacs 22.1 release

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Reiner Steib <reinersteib+gmane@imap.cc>
> Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 12:47:28 +0200
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, Jason Rumney <jasonr@gnu.org>
> 
> But this isn't relevant to the issue at hand (the binary distribution
> of Emacs 22 for Windows on <ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/emacs/windows>), is
> it?
> 
> Probably it wasn't clear from the quoted context: The binaries on
> <ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/emacs/windows> don't include DLLs required to
> display XPM (tool bar), PNG, JPEG and other images in Emacs.  The user
> needs to download them separately from several(?) third party sites as
> explained in <ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/emacs/windows/README>.  Else, the
> user only gets (ugly) monochrome PBM/PGM/PPM icons, as shown in the
> first screen shot in
> <http://article.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.bugs/15800>.

FWIW, I think we should _include_ the image DLLs in the binary
distribution, because otherwise the question about the ugly monochrome
icons will quickly become the ugliest FAQ we will need to reply.

Re: bad tool-bar icons in Emacs 22.1 release

[Richard Stallman]

Would someone like to put libxpm into a subdirectory in the trunk,
and integrate it in?

Re: bad tool-bar icons in Emacs 22.1 release

[Stefan Monnier]

> Would someone like to put libxpm into a subdirectory in the trunk,
> and integrate it in?

Do we really want to do that?  That means trying to stay up-to-date, so
extra work to sync that with the upstream code etc...

And all that only for the benefit of w32 users?

It seems simpler to inlcude the libxpm binary DLLs in the precompiled Emacs
tarball we distribute for w32.  We can also include a copy of the libxpm
source code along side the prebuilt tarball on the FTP site, of course.


        Stefan

Re: bad tool-bar icons in Emacs 22.1 release

[Juanma Barranquero]

On 6/30/07, Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:

> It seems simpler to inlcude the libxpm binary DLLs in the precompiled Emacs
> tarball we distribute for w32.  We can also include a copy of the libxpm
> source code along side the prebuilt tarball on the FTP site, of course.

100% agreement.

             Juanma

Re: bad tool-bar icons in Emacs 22.1 release

[Richard Stallman]

    Probably it wasn't clear from the quoted context: The binaries on
    <ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/emacs/windows> don't include DLLs required to
    display XPM (tool bar), PNG, JPEG and other images in Emacs.

For convenience, let's put these libraries on the site.
We should distribute the source alongside the binaries,
and we should make sure that the binaries have whatever
notices are required by the licenses.

Who would like to take charge of this?

Re: bad tool-bar icons in Emacs 22.1 release

[Lennart Borgman (gmail)]

Richard Stallman wrote:
>     Probably it wasn't clear from the quoted context: The binaries on
>     <ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/emacs/windows> don't include DLLs required to
>     display XPM (tool bar), PNG, JPEG and other images in Emacs.
> 
> For convenience, let's put these libraries on the site.
> We should distribute the source alongside the binaries,
> and we should make sure that the binaries have whatever
> notices are required by the licenses.


If the libraries are not included in the w32 Emacs binary download file 
would it not be better to just link to their locations? That way the 
user will get the latest version whenever he/she downloads the libaries.

Re: bad tool-bar icons in Emacs 22.1 release

[Reiner Steib]

On Sun, Jul 01 2007, Richard Stallman wrote:

>     Probably it wasn't clear from the quoted context: The binaries on
>     <ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/emacs/windows> don't include DLLs required to
>     display XPM (tool bar), PNG, JPEG and other images in Emacs.
>
> For convenience, let's put these libraries on the site.

It would be preferable to include the libraries in the zip archive in
the right directory (emacs-22.1/bin/ (?), along with some
README.image-libs file?).

BTW, when uploading a new version, the file name should be modified
(e.g. emacs-22.1-bin-i386.zip -> emacs-22.1-a-bin-i386.zip) as well.

> We should distribute the source alongside the binaries,
> and we should make sure that the binaries have whatever
> notices are required by the licenses.

The sources could be in a separate zip file (e.g.
emacs-22.1-image-libs-src.zip).

Bye, Reiner.
-- 
       ,,,
      (o o)
---ooO-(_)-Ooo---  |  PGP key available  |  http://rsteib.home.pages.de/

Re: bad tool-bar icons in Emacs 22.1 release

[Richard Stallman]

    Do we really want to do that?  That means trying to stay up-to-date, so
    extra work to sync that with the upstream code etc...

    And all that only for the benefit of w32 users?

Is this really only useful for w32 users?
I thought it was useful on more platforms.
But I might be mistaken about this.

Re: bad tool-bar icons in Emacs 22.1 release

[Richard Stallman]

    If the libraries are not included in the w32 Emacs binary download file 
    would it not be better to just link to their locations?

No, because every additional step needed for installation tends
to discourage a certain fraction of people from even trying.

Re: bad tool-bar icons in Emacs 22.1 release

[Richard Stallman]

    It would be preferable to include the libraries in the zip archive in
    the right directory (emacs-22.1/bin/ (?), along with some
    README.image-libs file?).

That sounds convenient for the users.

    BTW, when uploading a new version, the file name should be modified
    (e.g. emacs-22.1-bin-i386.zip -> emacs-22.1-a-bin-i386.zip) as well.

I do not understand why you propose this.

    > We should distribute the source alongside the binaries,
    > and we should make sure that the binaries have whatever
    > notices are required by the licenses.

    The sources could be in a separate zip file (e.g.
    emacs-22.1-image-libs-src.zip).

Yes.

Re: bad tool-bar icons in Emacs 22.1 release

[Jason Rumney]

Lennart Borgman (gmail) wrote:
> If the libraries are not included in the w32 Emacs binary download
> file would it not be better to just link to their locations? That way
> the user will get the latest version whenever he/she downloads the
> libaries.
AFAICT all the known Windows binaries of libXpm except perhaps the one
distributed with Gimp contain a known vulnerability, and are certainly
not the latest version.

Re: bad tool-bar icons in Emacs 22.1 release

[Jason Rumney]

Richard Stallman wrote:
> Is this really only useful for w32 users?
> I thought it was useful on more platforms.
> But I might be mistaken about this.
>   
libXpm is an integral part of X, so any modern X installation will have
it already.

Re: bad tool-bar icons in Emacs 22.1 release

[Lennart Borgman (gmail)]

Richard Stallman wrote:
>     If the libraries are not included in the w32 Emacs binary download file 
>     would it not be better to just link to their locations?
> 
> No, because every additional step needed for installation tends
> to discourage a certain fraction of people from even trying.

Is not that a good argument for including them in the binaries then?

Re: bad tool-bar icons in Emacs 22.1 release

[Christian Schlauer]

Reiner Steib <reinersteib+gmane@imap.cc> writes:

> But this isn't relevant to the issue at hand (the binary distribution
> of Emacs 22 for Windows on <ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/emacs/windows>), is
> it?

By the way: <http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/#Obtaining> links to
<http://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/emacs/> (note the _http_). Going from
there to the windows-directory
<http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/emacs/windows/>, one doesn't see the README
file (with the Firefox browser) that explains about the image
libraries and where to get them.

Using this link <ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/emacs/windows/> (note the
_ftp_), however, I do see the README
<ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/emacs/windows/README>.

I guess many (most?) users that download Emacs 22.1 do not even see
the README. That's bad.

-- 
Christian Schlauer

Re: bad tool-bar icons in Emacs 22.1 release

[Dieter Wilhelm]

Jason Rumney <jasonr@gnu.org> writes:

> Richard Stallman wrote:
>> Is this really only useful for w32 users?
>> I thought it was useful on more platforms.
>> But I might be mistaken about this.
>>   
> libXpm is an integral part of X, so any modern X installation will have
> it already.

And who cares for the wannabe minimalists 8-?

I just installed the Debian 4.0 minimal system.  I want X and
installed the xorg package, compiled Emacs 22 after loading some few
other tools (firefox, texlive, ...).

So libXpm is still missing here but I don't mind (tool-bar-mode -1).

-- 
    Best wishes

    H. Dieter Wilhelm
    Darmstadt, Germany

Re: bad tool-bar icons in Emacs 22.1 release

[Jan Djärv]

Dieter Wilhelm skrev:
> Jason Rumney <jasonr@gnu.org> writes:
> 
>> Richard Stallman wrote:
>>> Is this really only useful for w32 users?
>>> I thought it was useful on more platforms.
>>> But I might be mistaken about this.
>>>   
>> libXpm is an integral part of X, so any modern X installation will have
>> it already.
> 
> And who cares for the wannabe minimalists 8-?
> 
> I just installed the Debian 4.0 minimal system.  I want X and
> installed the xorg package, compiled Emacs 22 after loading some few
> other tools (firefox, texlive, ...).
> 
> So libXpm is still missing here but I don't mind (tool-bar-mode -1).
> 

You probably have libXpm (runtime), but the development package is missing.

	Jan D.

Re: bad tool-bar icons in Emacs 22.1 release

[Richard Stallman]

    > No, because every additional step needed for installation tends
    > to discourage a certain fraction of people from even trying.

    Is not that a good argument for including them in the binaries then?

It is an argument in favor of that.  But people say that would be a pain
for other reasons.  So maybe this is the best compromise.

Re: bad tool-bar icons in Emacs 22.1 release

[Richard Stallman]

    By the way: <http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/#Obtaining> links to
    <http://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/emacs/> (note the _http_). Going from
    there to the windows-directory
    <http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/emacs/windows/>, one doesn't see the README
    file (with the Firefox browser) that explains about the image
    libraries and where to get them.

Why doesn't it?

Re: bad tool-bar icons in Emacs 22.1 release

[Reiner Steib]

On Sun, Jul 01 2007, Richard Stallman wrote:

>     BTW, when uploading a new version, the file name should be modified
>     (e.g. emacs-22.1-bin-i386.zip -> emacs-22.1-a-bin-i386.zip) as well.
>
> I do not understand why you propose this.

Offering different files under the same name (at different dates)
leads to confusion.

Example: For a couple of days there was emacs-22.1-bin-i386.zip on ftp
which was missing `site-lisp/subdirs.el'.  I have downloaded this
file.  A few days later people reported that their copy of
emacs-22.1-bin-i386.zip included it.

If we'd release "emacs-22.1-bin-i386.zip" _with_ the image DLLs you
always have to ask the user when he has downloaded the ZIP file and/or
if it includes emacs-22.1/bin/FOO.dll etc.

Bye, Reiner.
-- 
       ,,,
      (o o)
---ooO-(_)-Ooo---  |  PGP key available  |  http://rsteib.home.pages.de/

Re: bad tool-bar icons in Emacs 22.1 release

[Dieter Wilhelm]

Jan Djärv <jan.h.d@swipnet.se> writes:

>>> libXpm is an integral part of X, so any modern X installation will have
>>> it already.
>>
>> And who cares for the wannabe minimalists 8-?
>>
>> I just installed the Debian 4.0 minimal system.  I want X and
>> installed the xorg package, compiled Emacs 22 after loading some few
>> other tools (firefox, texlive, ...).
>>
>> So libXpm is still missing here but I don't mind (tool-bar-mode -1).
>
> You probably have libXpm (runtime), but the development package is missing.

You're right.  libXpm is required by libXaw7 and this is, in turn,
required by Xorg, only libXpm-dev is missing:

dieter@debby:~$ aptitude search libxpm
p   libxpm-dev                      - X11 pixmap library (development headers)  
i A libxpm4                         - X11 pixmap library                        

-- 
    Best wishes

    H. Dieter Wilhelm
    Darmstadt, Germany

Re: bad tool-bar icons in Emacs 22.1 release

[Jason Rumney]

Richard Stallman wrote:
>     Is not that a good argument for including them in the binaries then?
>
> It is an argument in favor of that.  But people say that would be a pain
> for other reasons.  So maybe this is the best compromise.
>   

I must have missed that mail - what was the pain?

Re: bad tool-bar icons in Emacs 22.1 release

[Richard Stallman]

    Offering different files under the same name (at different dates)
    leads to confusion.

    If we'd release "emacs-22.1-bin-i386.zip" _with_ the image DLLs you
    always have to ask the user when he has downloaded the ZIP file and/or
    if it includes emacs-22.1/bin/FOO.dll etc.

Now I see what you mean, and I agree.
(I think this is a GNU standard policy too.)

Re: bad tool-bar icons in Emacs 22.1 release

[Christian Schlauer]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

>     By the way: <http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/#Obtaining> links to
>     <http://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/emacs/> (note the _http_). Going from
>     there to the windows-directory
>     <http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/emacs/windows/>, one doesn't see the README
>     file (with the Firefox browser) that explains about the image
>     libraries and where to get them.
>
> Why doesn't it?

That's what I wonder, too. When accessing ftp.gnu.org via HTTP, the
bottom line says "Apache/1.3.34 Server at ftp.gnu.org Port 80" -- I
guess the Apache web server `pretty-prints' the directory listing and
omits the `superfluous details'...

The README in the root directory at <http://ftp.gnu.org/> isn't
displayed either, but when I use <ftp://ftp.gnu.org/>, I can see the
file <http://ftp.gnu.org/README>, which says

,----
| Comments, suggestions, problems and complaints should be reported via
| email to <gnu@gnu.org>.
`----

I will write to them.

Re: bad tool-bar icons in Emacs 22.1 release

[Richard Stallman]

I reported this problem to the GNU sysadmins.

Re: bad tool-bar icons in Emacs 22.1 release

[Christian Schlauer]

I wrote:
>     By the way: <http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/#Obtaining> links to
>     <http://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/emacs/> (note the _http_). Going from
>     there to the windows-directory
>     <http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/emacs/windows/>, one doesn't see the README
>     file (with the Firefox browser) that explains about the image
>     libraries and where to get them.

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> I reported this problem to the GNU sysadmins.

So did I. I received an e-mail that they have fixed it, and I can
confirm that the problem is gone.