RE: bad tool-bar icons in Emacs 22.1 release

RE: bad tool-bar icons in Emacs 22.1 release

[Drew Adams]

I should also have pointed out that the tool-bar buttons don't align with
the images. For instance, the leftmost button is in its normal position,
which means that it corresponds to two half-images from the two leftmost
icons. And so on, across the bar. Some of the buttons have ~ a single icon,
but others have two half-icons.

> From: Drew Adams Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 7:22 AM
> See attached images. The one with the bad tool-bar icons (which
> are also poorly aligned) is from the 22.1 release. The one with
> the good icons is from Lennart Borgman's build of 2007-05-22.
>
> The README said that it would be OK to unpack the complete source
> distribution on top of the Windows distribution, so that's what I did.
>
>   "If you need the C source code at a later date, it will be safe to
>    unpack the source distribution on top of this installation."
>
> It's not clearly stated just what "unpack...on top of" means. In my
> case, I said "Yes to all", so that whatever is in the complete source
> distribution overwrote what is in the Windows distribution. To me,
> that's what "on top of" means: overwrite.
>
> I got the Windows distribution here:
> http://mirrors.kernel.org/gnu/emacs/windows/. I downloaded
> emacs-22.1-bin-i386.zip.
>
> I got the complete source distribution here:
> http://mirrors.kernel.org/gnu/emacs/. I downloaded emacs-22.1.tar.gz.
>
> Is this a bug in the release? A bug in the instructions (perhaps I
> should not have "unpacked on top of"? User error?
>
>
> In GNU Emacs 22.1.1 (i386-mingw-nt5.1.2600)
>  of 2007-06-02 on RELEASE
> Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 5.1.2600
> configured using `configure --with-gcc (3.4) --cflags
> -Ic:/gnuwin32/include'
>
> Important settings:
>   value of $LC_ALL: nil
>   value of $LC_COLLATE: nil
>   value of $LC_CTYPE: nil
>   value of $LC_MESSAGES: nil
>   value of $LC_MONETARY: nil
>   value of $LC_NUMERIC: nil
>   value of $LC_TIME: nil
>   value of $LANG: ENU
>   locale-coding-system: cp1252
>   default-enable-multibyte-characters: t
>
> Major mode: Dired by name
>
> Minor modes in effect:
>   encoded-kbd-mode: t
>   tooltip-mode: t
>   tool-bar-mode: t
>   mouse-wheel-mode: t
>   menu-bar-mode: t
>   file-name-shadow-mode: t
>   global-font-lock-mode: t
>   font-lock-mode: t
>   blink-cursor-mode: t
>   unify-8859-on-encoding-mode: t
>   utf-translate-cjk-mode: t
>   auto-compression-mode: t
>   line-number-mode: t
>
> Recent input:
> <help-echo> <help-echo> <help-echo> <help-echo> <help-echo>
> <help-echo> <help-echo> <help-echo> <help-echo> <help-echo>
> <help-echo> <help-echo> <help-echo> <help-echo> <help-echo>
> <help-echo> <help-echo> <help-echo> <help-echo> <help-echo>
> <help-echo> <help-echo> <help-echo> <help-echo> <help-echo>
> <help-echo> <menu-bar> <help-menu> <report-emacs-b
> ug>
>
> Recent messages:
> ("C:\\Emacs-22.1\\bin\\emacs.exe" "-q" "--no-site-file"
> "--debug-init" "C:\\drews-lisp-20")
> Loading encoded-kb...done
> For information about the GNU Project and its goals, type C-h C-p.
> Loading dired...
> Loading regexp-opt...done
> Loading dired...done
> For information about the GNU Project and its goals, type C-h C-p.
> Loading emacsbug...done
>

RE: bad tool-bar icons in Emacs 22.1 release

[Drew Adams]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3538 bytes --]

The GIF images were rejected by bug-gnu-emacs. Trying again with PNG.

> From: Drew Adams Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 7:28 AM 
> I should also have pointed out that the tool-bar buttons don't 
> align with the images. For instance, the leftmost button is in 
> its normal position, which means that it corresponds to two 
> half-images from the two leftmost icons. And so on, across the 
> bar. Some of the buttons have ~ a single icon, but others have 
> two half-icons.
> 
> > From: Drew Adams Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 7:22 AM
> > See attached images. The one with the bad tool-bar icons (which
> > are also poorly aligned) is from the 22.1 release. The one with
> > the good icons is from Lennart Borgman's build of 2007-05-22.
> > 
> > The README said that it would be OK to unpack the complete source
> > distribution on top of the Windows distribution, so that's what I did.
> > 
> >   "If you need the C source code at a later date, it will be safe to
> >    unpack the source distribution on top of this installation."
> > 
> > It's not clearly stated just what "unpack...on top of" means. In my
> > case, I said "Yes to all", so that whatever is in the complete source
> > distribution overwrote what is in the Windows distribution. To me,
> > that's what "on top of" means: overwrite.
> > 
> > I got the Windows distribution here:
> > http://mirrors.kernel.org/gnu/emacs/windows/. I downloaded
> > emacs-22.1-bin-i386.zip.
> > 
> > I got the complete source distribution here: 
> > http://mirrors.kernel.org/gnu/emacs/. I downloaded emacs-22.1.tar.gz.
> > 
> > Is this a bug in the release? A bug in the instructions (perhaps I
> > should not have "unpacked on top of"? User error?
> > 
> > 
> > In GNU Emacs 22.1.1 (i386-mingw-nt5.1.2600)
> >  of 2007-06-02 on RELEASE
> > Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 5.1.2600
> > configured using `configure --with-gcc (3.4) --cflags 
> > -Ic:/gnuwin32/include'
> > 
> > Important settings:
> >   value of $LC_ALL: nil
> >   value of $LC_COLLATE: nil
> >   value of $LC_CTYPE: nil
> >   value of $LC_MESSAGES: nil
> >   value of $LC_MONETARY: nil
> >   value of $LC_NUMERIC: nil
> >   value of $LC_TIME: nil
> >   value of $LANG: ENU
> >   locale-coding-system: cp1252
> >   default-enable-multibyte-characters: t
> > 
> > Major mode: Dired by name
> > 
> > Minor modes in effect:
> >   encoded-kbd-mode: t
> >   tooltip-mode: t
> >   tool-bar-mode: t
> >   mouse-wheel-mode: t
> >   menu-bar-mode: t
> >   file-name-shadow-mode: t
> >   global-font-lock-mode: t
> >   font-lock-mode: t
> >   blink-cursor-mode: t
> >   unify-8859-on-encoding-mode: t
> >   utf-translate-cjk-mode: t
> >   auto-compression-mode: t
> >   line-number-mode: t
> > 
> > Recent input:
> > <help-echo> <help-echo> <help-echo> <help-echo> <help-echo> 
> > <help-echo> <help-echo> <help-echo> <help-echo> <help-echo> 
> > <help-echo> <help-echo> <help-echo> <help-echo> <help-echo> 
> > <help-echo> <help-echo> <help-echo> <help-echo> <help-echo> 
> > <help-echo> <help-echo> <help-echo> <help-echo> <help-echo> 
> > <help-echo> <menu-bar> <help-menu> <report-emacs-b
> > ug>
> > 
> > Recent messages:
> > ("C:\\Emacs-22.1\\bin\\emacs.exe" "-q" "--no-site-file" 
> > "--debug-init" "C:\\drews-lisp-20")
> > Loading encoded-kb...done
> > For information about the GNU Project and its goals, type C-h C-p.
> > Loading dired...
> > Loading regexp-opt...done
> > Loading dired...done
> > For information about the GNU Project and its goals, type C-h C-p.
> > Loading emacsbug...done
> > 

[-- Attachment #2: throw-lennart-05-22.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 9138 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #3: throw-distrib.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 9358 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #4: Type: text/plain, Size: 149 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
bug-gnu-emacs mailing list
bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnu-emacs

Re: bad tool-bar icons in Emacs 22.1 release

[Reiner Steib]

On Sat, Jun 09 2007, Drew Adams wrote:

>> > From: Drew Adams Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 7:22 AM
>> > See attached images. The one with the bad tool-bar icons 

I'm not sure if this is what your asking for, but for nicer icons, you
need to install some image DLLs (see the README below).

>> > (which are also poorly aligned) is from the 22.1 release.

Looks like a bug.  But I couldn't reproduce this when using
emacs-22.1-bin-i386.zip without further DLLs.

,----[ ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/emacs/windows/README ]
| * Image support
| 
|   Emacs 22.1 contains support for images, however for most image formats
|   supporting libraries are required.  This distribution has been tested
|   with the libraries that are distributed with GTK for Windows, and the
|   libraries found at http://gnuwin32.sourceforge.net/. The following image
|   formats are supported:
| 
|       PBM/PGM/PPM: Supported natively by Emacs. This format is used for
|       the black and white versions of the toolbar icons.
| 
|       XPM: requires a Windows port of the XPM library 3.4 or later,
|       which will be named xpm4.dll, libxpm-nox4.dll or
|       libxpm.dll. This format is used for the color versions of the
|       toolbar icons, and other images in Emacs.
| 
|       PNG: requires the PNG reference library 1.2 or later, which will
|       be named libpng13d.dll, libpng13.dll, libpng12d.dll, libpng12.dll
|       or libpng.dll. LibPNG requires zlib, which should come from the same
|       source as you got libpng.
| 
|       JPEG: requires the Independant JPEG Group's libjpeg 6b or later,
|       which will be called jpeg62.dll, libjpeg.dll, jpeg-62.dll or jpeg.dll.
| 
|       TIFF: requires libTIFF 3.0 or later, which will be called libtiff3.dll
|       or libtiff.dll.
| 
|       GIF: requires libungif or giflib 4.1 or later, which will be
|       called giflib4.dll, libungif4.dll or libungif.dll.
`----

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

RE: bad tool-bar icons in Emacs 22.1 release

[Drew Adams]

> I'm not sure if this is what your asking for, but for nicer icons, you
> need to install some image DLLs (see the README below).

No, I wasn't looking for nicer icons (but thanks anyway).
I was reporting a bug in the Emacs 22.1 release (with the default icons).

> Looks like a bug.  But I couldn't reproduce this when using
> emacs-22.1-bin-i386.zip without further DLLs.

Did you do just what I did? I downloaded and installed first the full
Windows binary distrib (i.e. bin, not barebin), and then downloaded and
installed the full source distrib, on top of the Windows binary distrib. See
my description for details.

Re: bad tool-bar icons in Emacs 22.1 release

[Reiner Steib]

On Sat, Jun 09 2007, Drew Adams wrote:

>> I'm not sure if this is what your asking for, but for nicer icons, you
>> need to install some image DLLs (see the README below).
>
> No, I wasn't looking for nicer icons (but thanks anyway).
> I was reporting a bug in the Emacs 22.1 release (with the default icons).

The nicer color icons (GNOME/GTK/style; see e.g. etc/images/save.xpm)
are "the default icons" [1].  They only require external image
libraries whereas the monochrome PBM/PGM/PPM icons are supported by
natively by the Emacs binary w/o further libs (DLLs on Windows), see
the README file cited previously.

[1] I'd consider the monochrome icons as a fallback e.g. for
    monochrome displays.

>> Looks like a bug.  But I couldn't reproduce this when using
>> emacs-22.1-bin-i386.zip without further DLLs.
>
> Did you do just what I did? I downloaded and installed first the full
> Windows binary distrib (i.e. bin, not barebin), and then downloaded and
> installed the full source distrib, on top of the Windows binary distrib. See
> my description for details.

No, I downloaded and unzipped emacs-22.1-bin-i386.zip.  But I doubt
that it makes a difference WRT the misaligned icons.

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

RE: bad tool-bar icons in Emacs 22.1 release

[Drew Adams]

> >> I'm not sure if this is what your asking for, but for nicer icons, you
> >> need to install some image DLLs (see the README below).
> >
> > No, I wasn't looking for nicer icons (but thanks anyway).
> > I was reporting a bug in the Emacs 22.1 release (with the
> > default icons).
>
> The nicer color icons (GNOME/GTK/style; see e.g. etc/images/save.xpm)
> are "the default icons" [1].  They only require external image
> libraries whereas the monochrome PBM/PGM/PPM icons are supported by
> natively by the Emacs binary w/o further libs (DLLs on Windows), see
> the README file cited previously.
>
> [1] I'd consider the monochrome icons as a fallback e.g. for
>     monochrome displays.

You might consider color to be the default, but for Windows, you don't get
color by default - you must install external image libraries. You might
consider B&W to be only a fallback for monochrome displays, but it is also
the default installation for color displays on Windows: out of the box, that
is, with just the downloaded zip or tar, you get B&W. If you follow
additional instructions, performing additional steps (optional), then you
can get color.

To my understanding of "default", the default for Windows is B&W, not color.

Nothing wrong with that, if it's unavoidable, but let's not pretend that the
default is color if a user needs to jump through extra hoops (on Windows) to
get color. BTW, when was the last time anyone saw Windows used with a
monochrome display?

This is one reason that I support the idea of an Emacs installer for
Windows, such as the one Lennart Borgman supplies. Windows users are used to
simply pushing a button to get something installed, perhaps answering yes or
no a few times to simple customization questions, and perhaps changing a
location or two - that's it. They are less used to digging out and reading
READMEs with instructions about possibly downloading supplemental packages
and installing them to obtain optional features. That happens sometimes, but
it is not very common. It certainly doesn't happen for something as basic as
color support.

Wrt color: I've installed lots of programs on Windows, and I've never had to
do anything special to get them to be color-able or color-aware. For many
Windows users, this will reflect poorly on Emacs, I'm afraid, not on
Windows. They see color everywhere in Windows, so they will not think this
is something lacking in Windows - they will think that it is something
lacking in Emacs. Which, in a sense, it is ;-).

I don't use Lennart's installer myself, BTW, because AFAIK it bundles other
things that I don't want, it sets up a version of server/client that I don't
want, and it makes assumptions of where I want to put Emacs etc. Still, I
think the idea of an installer is a good one, even if I personally use just
a zip file of vanilla Emacs. (Please note the "AFAIK" - I haven't tried
Lennart's installer in a while, and I might be mistaken about it.)

> >> Looks like a bug.  But I couldn't reproduce this when using
> >> emacs-22.1-bin-i386.zip without further DLLs.
> >
> > Did you do just what I did? I downloaded and installed first the full
> > Windows binary distrib (i.e. bin, not barebin), and then downloaded and
> > installed the full source distrib, on top of the Windows binary
> > distrib. See my description for details.
>
> No, I downloaded and unzipped emacs-22.1-bin-i386.zip.  But I doubt
> that it makes a difference WRT the misaligned icons.

You might doubt it, and you might be right. But from your and my
descriptions, that is the only difference between what we each did. Either
our descriptions are incomplete or that difference is significant. To
reproduce a bug, it's usually not a bad idea to follow the recipe provided
;-).

Re: bad tool-bar icons in Emacs 22.1 release

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: "Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com>
> Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 10:11:26 -0700
> Cc: Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman.073@student.lu.se>
> 
> This is one reason that I support the idea of an Emacs installer for
> Windows, such as the one Lennart Borgman supplies. Windows users are used to
> simply pushing a button to get something installed, perhaps answering yes or
> no a few times to simple customization questions, and perhaps changing a
> location or two - that's it.

Having the image support DLLs in the same zip file as the Emacs
binaries would solve the particular problem that is the subject of
this thread as well as an installer.

RE: bad tool-bar icons in Emacs 22.1 release

[Drew Adams]

> Having the image support DLLs in the same zip file as the Emacs
> binaries would solve the particular problem that is the subject of
> this thread as well as an installer.

Yes, thank you. Presumably in the bin subdirectory of the Emacs directory.

Re: bad tool-bar icons in Emacs 22.1 release

[Reiner Steib]

On Sat, Jun 09 2007, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>> From: "Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com>
>> Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 10:11:26 -0700
>> Cc: Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman.073@student.lu.se>
>> 
>> This is one reason that I support the idea of an Emacs installer for
>> Windows, such as the one Lennart Borgman supplies. Windows users are used to
>> simply pushing a button to get something installed, perhaps answering yes or
>> no a few times to simple customization questions, and perhaps changing a
>> location or two - that's it.

I agree that most Windows users expect this and it would be nice to
have such an installer for Emacs as well.  OTOH, experienced
users/admins might prefer ZIPs because this makes sure that the
installed files are located in a given directory and not spread across
the system.  Another advantage is the ability to run the application
"without installation" directly from an USB stick.  (I remember such
considerations for Mozilla products, "portable Firefox", "portable
Tunderbird").  So it might be good to offer ZIP _and_ installer
versions.

> Having the image support DLLs in the same zip file as the Emacs
> binaries would solve the particular problem that is the subject of
> this thread as well as an installer.

If there's no problem WRT license issues, I think it would make much
sense to include the image support DLLs in the official Emacs
distribution for windows.  Without these DLLs, Emacs' tool bar really
looks antiquated.  

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>
> Cc: "Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com>, lennart.borgman.073@student.lu.se,
>         bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 11:51:26 +0200
> 
> > Having the image support DLLs in the same zip file as the Emacs
> > binaries would solve the particular problem that is the subject of
> > this thread as well as an installer.
> 
> If there's no problem WRT license issues

I don't think there are any.

Re: bad tool-bar icons in Emacs 22.1 release

[Jason Rumney]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>>> Having the image support DLLs in the same zip file as the Emacs
>>> binaries would solve the particular problem that is the subject of
>>> this thread as well as an installer.
>>>       
>> If there's no problem WRT license issues
>>     
>
> I don't think there are any.
>   

The libraries are Free, so it is certainly possible to distribute them
together, provided all the terms of all the licenses involved are
followed. Whether distributing third party libraries from ftp.gnu.org is
a good idea, or allowable, is a different question.

Re: bad tool-bar icons in Emacs 22.1 release

[Richard Stallman]

    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.

Re: bad tool-bar icons in Emacs 22.1 release

[Jason Rumney]

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.


/*
 * Copyright (C) 1989-95 GROUPE BULL
 *
 * Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining
a copy
 * of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to
 * deal in the Software without restriction, including without
limitation the
 * rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense,
and/or
 * sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the
Software is
 * furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
 *
 * The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
included in
 * all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
 *
 * THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
EXPRESS OR
 * IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
 * FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL
 * GROUPE BULL BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY,
WHETHER IN
 * AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN
 * CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
SOFTWARE.
 *
 * Except as contained in this notice, the name of GROUPE BULL shall not be
 * used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other
dealings
 * in this Software without prior written authorization from GROUPE BULL.
 */

Arnaud LE HORS      BULL Research FRANCE -- Koala Project
                    (XPM - X PixMap format version 2 & 3)
    Internet:       lehors@sophia.inria.fr
Surface Mail:       Arnaud LE HORS, INRIA - Sophia Antipolis,
                    2004, route des Lucioles, 06565 Valbonne Cedex -- FRANCE
 Voice phone:       (33) 93.65.77.71, Fax: (33) 93 65 77 66, Telex: 97
00 50 F

Re: bad tool-bar icons in Emacs 22.1 release

[Glenn Morris]

Jason Rumney wrote:

> 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.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/gif.html

    The Software Freedom Law Center says that after 1 October 2006,
    there will be no significant patent claims interfering with
    employment of the GIF format.

Re: bad tool-bar icons in Emacs 22.1 release

[Richard Stallman]

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.

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]

    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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

    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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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.

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]

    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

[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

[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

[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

[Richard Stallman]

    If there's no problem WRT license issues, I think it would make much
    sense to include the image support DLLs in the official Emacs
    distribution for windows.

Are these libraries free software?
If so, I don't mind including them.

Re: bad tool-bar icons in Emacs 22.1 release

[Reiner Steib]

On Sat, Jun 09 2007, Drew Adams wrote:

>> >> Looks like a bug.  But I couldn't reproduce this when using
>> >> emacs-22.1-bin-i386.zip without further DLLs.
>> >
>> > Did you do just what I did? I downloaded and installed first the full
>> > Windows binary distrib (i.e. bin, not barebin), and then downloaded and
>> > installed the full source distrib, on top of the Windows binary
>> > distrib. See my description for details.
>>
>> No, I downloaded and unzipped emacs-22.1-bin-i386.zip.  But I doubt
>> that it makes a difference WRT the misaligned icons.
>
> You might doubt it, and you might be right. But from your and my
> descriptions, that is the only difference between what we each did. Either
> our descriptions are incomplete or that difference is significant.

It turned out that the difference was the ZIP unpacker; so i was
right.  ;-)

> To reproduce a bug, it's usually not a bad idea to follow the recipe
> provided ;-).

I neither had bandwidth nor time to follow your recipe (and
significant difference wasn't included in the recipe ;-)).  It was
just by chance that I already had installed emacs-22.1-bin-i386.zip
the day before.

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

RE: bad tool-bar icons in Emacs 22.1 release

[Drew Adams]

> It turned out that the difference was the ZIP unpacker; so i was
> right.  ;-)

Yes, you were right. I was wrong that the only difference between what we
did was that I overwrote the Windows distrib with the complete source
distrib and you did not.

Re: bad tool-bar icons in Emacs 22.1 release

[Jason Rumney]

Drew Adams wrote:
>>> See attached images. The one with the bad tool-bar icons (which
>>> are also poorly aligned) is from the 22.1 release. The one with
>>> the good icons is from Lennart Borgman's build of 2007-05-22.
>>>
>>> The README said that it would be OK to unpack the complete source
>>> distribution on top of the Windows distribution, so that's what I did.
>>>       

Judging by the type of corruption you are seeing, did the program you
used to unpack the source distribution also convert the line-ends of
files to DOS line ends, thus corrupting the image files?

RE: bad tool-bar icons in Emacs 22.1 release

[Drew Adams]

> >>> See attached images. The one with the bad tool-bar icons (which
> >>> are also poorly aligned) is from the 22.1 release. The one with
> >>> the good icons is from Lennart Borgman's build of 2007-05-22.
> >>>
> >>> The README said that it would be OK to unpack the complete source
> >>> distribution on top of the Windows distribution, so that's what I did.
>
> Judging by the type of corruption you are seeing, did the program you
> used to unpack the source distribution also convert the line-ends of
> files to DOS line ends, thus corrupting the image files?

Bingo! Thanks. `find-file-literally' shows ^M at the end of each line.

I read this in the README.W32:

      "Be sure to disable the CR/LF translation or the executables will
      be unusable.  Older versions of WinZipNT would enable this
      translation by default.  If you are using WinZipNT, disable it.
      (I don't have WinZipNT myself, and I do not know the specific
      commands necessary to disable it.)"

FYI - My WinZip version is "8.1 (4331)" - a few years old. The latest
version available is 11.1.

I wonder if the README.W32 text shouldn't say which WinZip versions are
problematic (e.g. prior to version ___)?

Wrt how to disable it: I found, at least in my version, that the
Miscellaneous tab of the Configuration dialog box has a check box "TAR file
smart CR/LF conversion", which I assume is the problem (it was checked).

Thanks again. Sorry for the false route, but perhaps this will help in some
way.

Re: bad tool-bar icons in Emacs 22.1 release

[Jason Rumney]

Drew Adams wrote:
> I wonder if the README.W32 text shouldn't say which WinZip versions are
> problematic (e.g. prior to version ___)?
>   

I think all versions have the problematic option in them, but the
default for that option varies. I don't have the time nor inclination to
go through all the various versions they've ever released to check.