Compiling emacs 22 on ubuntu 7.0.4

Compiling emacs 22 on ubuntu 7.0.4

[Meryl Silverburgh]

Hi,

I am trying to compile emacs 22 on ubuntu 7.0.4. The compile
completes, but when I execute the emacs, the tool bar
icons/splashscreen only has black/white color. Can you please tell me
how to fix that?


This is my configure string:
 ./configure --prefix=/home/scheung/localbin --with-gtk -with-jpeg
--with-png --with-tiff --with-gif
Thank you.

Re: Compiling emacs 22 on ubuntu 7.0.4

[Nick Roberts]

 > I am trying to compile emacs 22 on ubuntu 7.0.4. The compile
 > completes, but when I execute the emacs, the tool bar
 > icons/splashscreen only has black/white color. Can you please tell me
 > how to fix that?
 > 
 > 
 > This is my configure string:
 >  ./configure --prefix=/home/scheung/localbin --with-gtk -with-jpeg
 > --with-png --with-tiff --with-gif
 > Thank you.

You're probably missing some header files, e.g, /usr/include/X11/xpm.h
from the package libxpm-dev.  You can check by looking through config.log in
the top directory.  Also, when you run configure at the start, a list of what
it finds is given at the end.

I don't think you need to specify  -with-jpeg --with-png --with-tiff --with-gif
as they are all the default (if you have the headers/libraries).

If you're building from CVS on the trunk, --with-gtk is also the default now.

-- 
Nick                                           http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob

Re: Compiling emacs 22 on ubuntu 7.0.4

[Jan Djärv]

Nick Roberts skrev:

> If you're building from CVS on the trunk, --with-gtk is also the default now.
> 

This could be improved:

% ./configure --with-x-toolkit=what
configure: error: `--with-x-toolkit=what' is invalid\;
this option's value should be `yes', `no', `lucid', `athena', `motif' or `gtk'.
Currently, `yes' and `gtk', and `athena' and `lucid' are synonyms.

It sound like yes, gtk, athena and lucid are all synonyms.  How about

`yes' and `gtk' are synonyms.  `athena' and `lucid' are synonyms.

	Jan D.

Re: Compiling emacs 22 on ubuntu 7.0.4

[Nick Roberts]

 > This could be improved:
 > 
 > % ./configure --with-x-toolkit=what
 > configure: error: `--with-x-toolkit=what' is invalid\;
 > this option's value should be `yes', `no', `lucid', `athena', `motif' or `gtk'.
 > Currently, `yes' and `gtk', and `athena' and `lucid' are synonyms.
 > 
 > It sound like yes, gtk, athena and lucid are all synonyms.  How about
 > 
 > `yes' and `gtk' are synonyms.  `athena' and `lucid' are synonyms.

It needs careful reading, but the comma gives it the proper meaning.  I think
Glenn was just responding to a request from RMS, so I'm sure he'll be happy for
you to change it as you see fit.

-- 
Nick                                           http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob

Re: Compiling emacs 22 on ubuntu 7.0.4

[Richard Stallman]

     > It sound like yes, gtk, athena and lucid are all synonyms.  How about
     > 
     > `yes' and `gtk' are synonyms.  `athena' and `lucid' are synonyms.

    It needs careful reading, but the comma gives it the proper meaning.

That is true, but misunderstandings are likely.  It would be
good to change this to make misunderstanding harder.

Re: Compiling emacs 22 on ubuntu 7.0.4

[Jan Djärv]

Nick Roberts skrev:
>  > This could be improved:
>  > 
>  > % ./configure --with-x-toolkit=what
>  > configure: error: `--with-x-toolkit=what' is invalid\;
>  > this option's value should be `yes', `no', `lucid', `athena', `motif' or `gtk'.
>  > Currently, `yes' and `gtk', and `athena' and `lucid' are synonyms.
>  > 
>  > It sound like yes, gtk, athena and lucid are all synonyms.  How about
>  > 
>  > `yes' and `gtk' are synonyms.  `athena' and `lucid' are synonyms.
> 
> It needs careful reading, but the comma gives it the proper meaning.  I think
> Glenn was just responding to a request from RMS, so I'm sure he'll be happy for
> you to change it as you see fit.
> 

I did so.

	Jan D.

Re: Compiling emacs 22 on ubuntu 7.0.4

[Nick Roberts]

 > Thanks. That solves my problem.
 > 
 > I have another question, I appreciate if you can help me with that:

Yes, but please cc to the list so others know it's been answered and
because they may be able to help you also.

 > I drag-and-drop a html file to an emacs icon (on gnome), emacs get
 > started,but only show the splash screen. and when I click a mouse, it
 > shows the content of the html file.
 > 
 > Is there a way to have emacs just show the content of the file
 > (without the splash screen)?

Put something like:

(setq inhibit-splash-screen t)

in your .emacs.  This has recently been answered on the mailing list
help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org (I think), which is a better forum for this kind of
question.  Please search the archives first.
(http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/help-gnu-emacs/)

Also the Emacs FAQ info file has the answer to many questions like this.

To others: Perhaps we should add the answer to this question there.

-- 
Nick                                           http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob

Re: Compiling emacs 22 on ubuntu 7.0.4

[Jan Djärv]

Meryl Silverburgh skrev:
> Hi,
> 
> I am trying to compile emacs 22 on ubuntu 7.0.4. The compile
> completes, but when I execute the emacs, the tool bar
> icons/splashscreen only has black/white color. Can you please tell me
> how to fix that?
> 
> 
> This is my configure string:
> ./configure --prefix=/home/scheung/localbin --with-gtk -with-jpeg
> --with-png --with-tiff --with-gif
> Thank you.

You are probably missing some development packages for image libraries.  What 
does the summary configure prints out say?
And what does
% ldd emacs
show?

	Jan D.

Re: Compiling emacs 22 on ubuntu 7.0.4

[Richard Stallman]

    You are probably missing some development packages for image libraries.  What 
    does the summary configure prints out say?

This doesn't seem right to me.

If some image libraries that ought to be present for a proper build of
Emacs are missing, is it really good for Emacs to compile without
those features?  Or would it be better to get error messages
and tell the user to install those development packages?

Re: Compiling emacs 22 on ubuntu 7.0.4

[Jan Djärv]

Richard Stallman skrev:
>     You are probably missing some development packages for image libraries.  What 
>     does the summary configure prints out say?
> 
> This doesn't seem right to me.
> 
> If some image libraries that ought to be present for a proper build of
> Emacs are missing, is it really good for Emacs to compile without
> those features?  Or would it be better to get error messages
> and tell the user to install those development packages?
> 

It would require us to check for the run time shared library, and that would
fail anyway if the user is crosscompiling.  Not to mention we don't know what
version to check for.  But if libXpm is not found, I guess we could print out
a warning saying that icons and images will be in black and white and
installation of libxpm-dev(el) or similar would fix this.

	Jan D.

Re: Compiling emacs 22 on ubuntu 7.0.4

[Richard Stallman]

    It would require us to check for the run time shared library, and that would
    fail anyway if the user is crosscompiling.  Not to mention we don't know what
    version to check for.

One simple solution is that configure should not check for them, but
instead assume they are present.  Then building Emacs will always try
to link with them, and if they are missing, it will get an error.

This is not ideal, since it won't give the user explicit clear advice.
But it seems better than what happens now, which is to build an Emacs
that is missing a normal feature, and make it seem this is normal.

      But if libXpm is not found, I guess we could print out
    a warning saying that icons and images will be in black and white and
    installation of libxpm-dev(el) or similar would fix this.

If we know enough to give a specific message with specific advice,
that is better than an error from ld.  But it should be a fatal error,
not a mere warning.  It should make the user fix things and try again.

Perhaps this should be done only on GNU/Linux.  If on other systems it
really is normal for those libraries to be missing, maybe configure
should check for the libraries (as it does now) on those systems.

Re: Compiling emacs 22 on ubuntu 7.0.4

[Jason Rumney]

Richard Stallman wrote:
>     You are probably missing some development packages for image libraries.  What 
>     does the summary configure prints out say?
>
> This doesn't seem right to me.
>
> If some image libraries that ought to be present for a proper build of
> Emacs are missing, is it really good for Emacs to compile without
> those features?  Or would it be better to get error messages
> and tell the user to install those development packages?
>   

Another way to solve these problems would be to use ppm files for the
color icons, since ppm support is built in to Emacs.

Currently we do the following:

1. if display supports >= 256 colors, try low-color/IMAGE_NAME.xpm if it
exists
2. try IMAGE_NAME.xpm (color icons - requires libxpm)
3. try IMAGE_NAME.pbm (monochrome icons - support built in)
4. try IMAGE_NAME.xbm (monochrome icons - support built in)

Personally I think we should try looking for png images early in the
process, since that is the source format for the images

Re: Compiling emacs 22 on ubuntu 7.0.4

[Richard Stallman]

    > If some image libraries that ought to be present for a proper build of
    > Emacs are missing, is it really good for Emacs to compile without
    > those features?  Or would it be better to get error messages
    > and tell the user to install those development packages?
    >   

    Another way to solve these problems would be to use ppm files for the
    color icons, since ppm support is built in to Emacs.

The problem I am talking about is not just about icons.
Emacs ought to support various graphics formats,
if their libraries are installed.  If they are not installed,
why should Emacs build without complaint and then lack the
functionality?  I think it's a mistake.

Re: Compiling emacs 22 on ubuntu 7.0.4

[Jan Djärv]

Richard Stallman skrev:
>     > If some image libraries that ought to be present for a proper build of
>     > Emacs are missing, is it really good for Emacs to compile without
>     > those features?  Or would it be better to get error messages
>     > and tell the user to install those development packages?
>     >   
> 
>     Another way to solve these problems would be to use ppm files for the
>     color icons, since ppm support is built in to Emacs.
> 
> The problem I am talking about is not just about icons.
> Emacs ought to support various graphics formats,
> if their libraries are installed.  If they are not installed,
> why should Emacs build without complaint and then lack the
> functionality?  I think it's a mistake.

I have machines where no libpng or lib(un)gif are installed.  But I don't need 
that functionallity in Emacs.  So why should Emacs reuire those libraries? 
libXpm is another matter, it is needed to see color icons.

	Jan D.

Re: Compiling emacs 22 on ubuntu 7.0.4

[David Kastrup]

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

> Richard Stallman skrev:
>>     > If some image libraries that ought to be present for a proper build of
>>     > Emacs are missing, is it really good for Emacs to compile without
>>     > those features?  Or would it be better to get error messages
>>     > and tell the user to install those development packages?
>>     >   
>>
>>     Another way to solve these problems would be to use ppm files for the
>>     color icons, since ppm support is built in to Emacs.
>>
>> The problem I am talking about is not just about icons.
>> Emacs ought to support various graphics formats,
>> if their libraries are installed.  If they are not installed,
>> why should Emacs build without complaint and then lack the
>> functionality?  I think it's a mistake.
>
> I have machines where no libpng or lib(un)gif are installed.  But I
> don't need that functionallity in Emacs.  So why should Emacs reuire
> those libraries? libXpm is another matter, it is needed to see color
> icons.

png is the default graphics format for preview-latex
<URL:http://www.gnu.org/software/auctex/preview-latex.html>.  It is
not uncommon for users to report problems with selfcompiled Emacs
variants.

I don't mind being able to specify --without-libpng and/or
--without-libgif, but the default behavior makes it somewhat too easy
to overlook that one is not generating a fully-capable Emacs for a
given platform.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: Compiling emacs 22 on ubuntu 7.0.4

[Jan Djärv]

David Kastrup skrev:
> 
> I don't mind being able to specify --without-libpng and/or
> --without-libgif, but the default behavior makes it somewhat too easy
> to overlook that one is not generating a fully-capable Emacs for a
> given platform.
> 

That is OK.  We can issue messages that says the library in question is 
required unless --without-* is given.  Are there any library we should not 
require?  I was thinking of tiff, which I don't think is that much used.

	Jan D.

Re: Compiling emacs 22 on ubuntu 7.0.4

[David Kastrup]

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

> David Kastrup skrev:
>>
>> I don't mind being able to specify --without-libpng and/or
>> --without-libgif, but the default behavior makes it somewhat too easy
>> to overlook that one is not generating a fully-capable Emacs for a
>> given platform.
>>
>
> That is OK.  We can issue messages that says the library in question
> is required unless --without-* is given.  Are there any library we
> should not require?  I was thinking of tiff, which I don't think is
> that much used.

It is quite common in prepress, and since Emacs includes stuff like
image-dired, it would appear reasonable to not omit it without notice.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: Compiling emacs 22 on ubuntu 7.0.4

[Jan Djärv]

David Kastrup skrev:
> Jan Djärv <jan.h.d@swipnet.se> writes:
> 
>> David Kastrup skrev:
>>> I don't mind being able to specify --without-libpng and/or
>>> --without-libgif, but the default behavior makes it somewhat too easy
>>> to overlook that one is not generating a fully-capable Emacs for a
>>> given platform.
>>>
>> That is OK.  We can issue messages that says the library in question
>> is required unless --without-* is given.  Are there any library we
>> should not require?  I was thinking of tiff, which I don't think is
>> that much used.
> 
> It is quite common in prepress, and since Emacs includes stuff like
> image-dired, it would appear reasonable to not omit it without notice.
> 

I changed configure so it exits with an error if any image library isn't
found, and --with-xxx=no was not given.  I only chnaged the trunk, not the
emacs 22 branch.

	Jan D.

Re: Compiling emacs 22 on ubuntu 7.0.4

[Glenn Morris]

Jan Djärv wrote:

> I changed configure so it exits with an error if any image library
> isn't found, and --with-xxx=no was not given. I only chnaged the
> trunk, not the emacs 22 branch.

To complete this hand-holding for people who don't bother to read
configure's final summary, it should presumably also do the same thing
for an x-toolkit (else the image libraries won't be much use).

I suggest that it would be slightly more friendly to check for all the
"required" features first, and only then abort with an error if any
are missing and not disabled, rather than aborting after the first
missing one. Otherwise it might be necessary to run configure multiple
times before it completes (disabling more things every time). I
realize this takes more work in configure.in though.

Re: Compiling emacs 22 on ubuntu 7.0.4

[Jan Djärv]

Glenn Morris skrev:
> Jan Djärv wrote:
> 
>> I changed configure so it exits with an error if any image library
>> isn't found, and --with-xxx=no was not given. I only chnaged the
>> trunk, not the emacs 22 branch.
> 
> To complete this hand-holding for people who don't bother to read
> configure's final summary, it should presumably also do the same thing
> for an x-toolkit (else the image libraries won't be much use).

Well, it could be OSX.

> 
> I suggest that it would be slightly more friendly to check for all the
> "required" features first, and only then abort with an error if any
> are missing and not disabled, rather than aborting after the first
> missing one. Otherwise it might be necessary to run configure multiple
> times before it completes (disabling more things every time). I
> realize this takes more work in configure.in though.
> 

Not that hard, I can change to that.

	Jan D.

Re: Compiling emacs 22 on ubuntu 7.0.4

[Glenn Morris]

Jan Djärv wrote:

> Not that hard, I can change to that.

Thanks, it looks like a neat feature.

Re: Compiling emacs 22 on ubuntu 7.0.4

[Richard Stallman]

    To complete this hand-holding for people who don't bother to read
    configure's final summary, it should presumably also do the same thing
    for an x-toolkit (else the image libraries won't be much use).

Please don't do that.  Emacs implements the same features with or without
X toolkits.  The absence of an X toolkit is not an anomaly, and should not
be treated as one.

However, if some toolkit is present but its development facilities are
missing, THAT is an anomaly.  To report that kind of anomaly would be
useful.

Re: Compiling emacs 22 on ubuntu 7.0.4

[Glenn Morris]

Richard Stallman wrote:

> Please don't do that. Emacs implements the same features with or
> without X toolkits. The absence of an X toolkit is not an anomaly,
> and should not be treated as one.

I can sort of follow your logic, but it would not be mine. I don't see
the absence of jpeg support (for example) as being any kind of anomaly
either. It's a "neat feature that many people like to have and might
get confused about when it's not available, so they should get extra
warning about its absence". Same for an X toolkit IMO.

Re: Compiling emacs 22 on ubuntu 7.0.4

[David Kastrup]

Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org> writes:

> Richard Stallman wrote:
>
>> Please don't do that. Emacs implements the same features with or
>> without X toolkits. The absence of an X toolkit is not an anomaly,
>> and should not be treated as one.
>
> I can sort of follow your logic, but it would not be mine. I don't see
> the absence of jpeg support (for example) as being any kind of anomaly
> either. It's a "neat feature that many people like to have and might
> get confused about when it's not available, so they should get extra
> warning about its absence". Same for an X toolkit IMO.

There have been quite enough people in the Emacs help lists who have
complained that their Emacs only runs in text mode.  It is pretty much
the most common problem for people compiling from source, and a
problem which they don't recognize.

We could probably use some heuristics: if DISPLAY is set, and/or if
X11 runtime libraries appear available and/or an executable named X
(the last probably being most reliable and easy to check), then we'll
barf unless the user explicitly says -without-X11.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Compiling emacs 22 on ubuntu 7.0.4

[Jan Djärv]

David Kastrup skrev:
> Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org> writes:
> 
>> Richard Stallman wrote:
>>
>>> Please don't do that. Emacs implements the same features with or
>>> without X toolkits. The absence of an X toolkit is not an anomaly,
>>> and should not be treated as one.
>> I can sort of follow your logic, but it would not be mine. I don't see
>> the absence of jpeg support (for example) as being any kind of anomaly
>> either. It's a "neat feature that many people like to have and might
>> get confused about when it's not available, so they should get extra
>> warning about its absence". Same for an X toolkit IMO.
> 
> There have been quite enough people in the Emacs help lists who have
> complained that their Emacs only runs in text mode.  It is pretty much
> the most common problem for people compiling from source, and a
> problem which they don't recognize.
> 
> We could probably use some heuristics: if DISPLAY is set, and/or if
> X11 runtime libraries appear available and/or an executable named X
> (the last probably being most reliable and easy to check), then we'll
> barf unless the user explicitly says -without-X11.

I'll try to come up with something.

	Jan D.

Re: Compiling emacs 22 on ubuntu 7.0.4

[Richard Stallman]

    We could probably use some heuristics: if DISPLAY is set, and/or if
    X11 runtime libraries appear available and/or an executable named X
    (the last probably being most reliable and easy to check), then we'll
    barf unless the user explicitly says -without-X11.

That seems like a good idea.

Whether to use a toolkit or not, and if so which, is a choice between
various ways of providing the same feature, all equally legitimate.
By contrast, whether to have X support is a matter of having or losing
an important feature.

Re: Compiling emacs 22 on ubuntu 7.0.4

[Richard Stallman]

    I can sort of follow your logic, but it would not be mine. I don't see
    the absence of jpeg support (for example) as being any kind of anomaly
    either.

I consider it an anomaly: display of jpegs is supposed to work.
That is the reason for the recent change to give an error
if those libraries are missing.

Re: Compiling emacs 22 on ubuntu 7.0.4

[Richard Stallman]

    I changed configure so it exits with an error if any image library isn't
    found, and --with-xxx=no was not given.  I only chnaged the trunk, not the
    emacs 22 branch.

I think this is correct for GNU/Linux and probably for some other
systems.

t could be that there are some platforms where the old behavior is
better, so we might subsequently want to switch between this behavior
and the old behavior according to the configuration name.  But we can wait
and see if that is really true.

Re: Compiling emacs 22 on ubuntu 7.0.4

[David House]

   From: <jan.h.d@swipnet.se>
   I have machines where no libpng or lib(un)gif are installed.  But I don't need 
   that functionallity in Emacs.  So why should Emacs reuire those libraries? 
   libXpm is another matter, it is needed to see color icons.

Perhaps Emacs should complain with a fatal error unless you supply a flag like
--without-gif, --without-xpm, etc.

-- David House, dmhouse@gmail.com

Re: Compiling emacs 22 on ubuntu 7.0.4

[Richard Stallman]

    I have machines where no libpng or lib(un)gif are installed.  But I don't need 
    that functionallity in Emacs.  So why should Emacs reuire those libraries? 

Is there some particular reason why you want to avoid installing those
libraries there?

Kastrup wrote:

    I don't mind being able to specify --without-libpng and/or
    --without-libgif, but the default behavior makes it somewhat too easy
    to overlook that one is not generating a fully-capable Emacs for a
    given platform.

I agree.

Re: Compiling emacs 22 on ubuntu 7.0.4

[Jan Djärv]

Richard Stallman skrev:
>     I have machines where no libpng or lib(un)gif are installed.  But I don't need 
>     that functionallity in Emacs.  So why should Emacs reuire those libraries? 
> 
> Is there some particular reason why you want to avoid installing those
> libraries there?
> 

I would have to install them as a regular user, and then pass on correct -I 
and -L to configure so it finds them.

> Kastrup wrote:
> 
>     I don't mind being able to specify --without-libpng and/or
>     --without-libgif, but the default behavior makes it somewhat too easy
>     to overlook that one is not generating a fully-capable Emacs for a
>     given platform.
> 
> I agree.

--without-gif is OK for me also.

	Jan D.

Re: Compiling emacs 22 on ubuntu 7.0.4

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
> Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 04:06:55 -0400
> Cc: silverburgh.meryl@gmail.com, jan.h.d@swipnet.se, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> The problem I am talking about is not just about icons.
> Emacs ought to support various graphics formats,
> if their libraries are installed.  If they are not installed,
> why should Emacs build without complaint and then lack the
> functionality?  I think it's a mistake.

I'm not sure I understand what scenario you were talking about.  The
origin of this thread was about a Windows build, where it is not
uncommon for the binaries to be built on one system, and then run on
many others (we provide precompiled Windows binaries on ftp.gnu.org).
In this scenario, while the machine where Emacs was built would
normally have all the image libraries (since Emacs developers
generally have them installed), we cannot assume anything about the
end-user machine.

In any case, the Windows configure script clearly says whether it did
or did not find each one of the image support libraries, although
those messages might not stand out enough among other configure-time
messages.

Re: Compiling emacs 22 on ubuntu 7.0.4

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 20:23:11 +0300
> From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
> Cc: silverburgh.meryl@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> The origin of this thread was about a Windows build

Or maybe it wasn't, in which case I apologize for the noise.