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: bug#5659: 23.1.92; bad toolbar icons, smaller default frame size Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 10:46:57 -0800 Message-ID: References: <87sk8dnwhf.fsf@stupidchicken.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1267912508 20562 80.91.229.12 (6 Mar 2010 21:55:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 21:55:08 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 5659@debbugs.gnu.org To: "'Chong Yidong'" Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Mar 06 22:55:04 2010 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 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1No1ZA-00063g-Kv for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 06 Mar 2010 22:29:45 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48782 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Nnz95-0003hJ-ET for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 06 Mar 2010 13:54:39 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Nnz8n-0003ci-Gv for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Mar 2010 13:54:21 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=43916 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Nnz8m-0003cX-Jz for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Mar 2010 13:54:21 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Nnz8j-0002Td-Kt for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Mar 2010 13:54:20 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:49255) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Nnz8j-0002TY-CF for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Mar 2010 13:54:17 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Nnz2g-0000UZ-7D; Sat, 06 Mar 2010 13:48:02 -0500 X-Loop: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-From: "Drew Adams" Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2010 18:48:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Emacs-PR-Message: followup 5659 X-Emacs-PR-Package: emacs,w32 X-Emacs-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 5659-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B5659.12679012701885 (code B ref 5659); Sat, 06 Mar 2010 18:48:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 5659) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 Mar 2010 18:47:50 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Nnz2U-0000UM-G6 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 06 Mar 2010 13:47:50 -0500 Original-Received: from rcsinet11.oracle.com ([148.87.113.123]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Nnz2S-0000UH-93 for 5659@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 06 Mar 2010 13:47:48 -0500 Original-Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com (acsinet15.oracle.com [141.146.126.227]) by rcsinet11.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.2) with ESMTP id o26Ilfu4009942 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 6 Mar 2010 18:47:43 GMT Original-Received: from acsmt353.oracle.com (acsmt353.oracle.com [141.146.40.153]) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id o26IXRGD020603; Sat, 6 Mar 2010 18:47:40 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt016.oracle.com by acsmt354.oracle.com with ESMTP id 67985281267901211; Sat, 06 Mar 2010 10:46:51 -0800 Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/141.144.160.53) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Sat, 06 Mar 2010 10:46:51 -0800 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <87sk8dnwhf.fsf@stupidchicken.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 Thread-Index: Acq9WaRR9laxVHhzSK24xljdmpKAMQAAKVJw X-Source-IP: acsmt353.oracle.com [141.146.40.153] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A0B0205.4B92A34D.0100:SCFMA4539814,ss=1,fgs=0 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2010 13:48:02 -0500 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org 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:35455 > 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.