[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[debbugs-tracker] bug#19889: closed (tex-verbatim face: don't specify :f

From: GNU bug Tracking System
Subject: [debbugs-tracker] bug#19889: closed (tex-verbatim face: don't specify :family?)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 21:34:01 +0000

Your message dated Fri, 13 May 2016 14:33:17 -0700
with message-id <address@hidden>
and subject line Re: bug#19889: bug#22207: emacs-25 mishandles info code text 
on Fedora 23
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #19889,
regarding tex-verbatim face: don't specify :family?
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact

19889: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=19889
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact address@hidden with problems
--- Begin Message --- Subject: tex-verbatim face: don't specify :family? Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 15:39:45 -0500 User-agent: Gnus (www.gnus.org), GNU Emacs (www.gnu.org/software/emacs/)
Package: emacs
Version: 24.4
Severity: minor

The tex-verbatim face is defined as

   '((t :family "courier"))

Is this a good idea?

AFAICS, it is the only face definition in Emacs that specifies a :family.
It seems to cause problems on some systems, see:


For me on RHEL7, that faces looks poor (blocky/pixellated) compared to
the other faces Emacs uses.

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- Subject: Re: bug#19889: bug#22207: emacs-25 mishandles info code text on Fedora 23 Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 14:33:17 -0700 User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.0
On 05/07/2016 10:27 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
I don't mind the change,
but I'd urge others to try the patch and see if it causes any

I installed the patch into master, to get the ball rolling on that.

Although I had been thinking of installing the patch into emacs-25, I see that Bug#19759 no longer lists 19889 or 22207 as blockers, which means emacs-25 is not a suitable place for the patch. (Bug#22207 was a blocker but I could not reproduce it and so closed it on May 5.)

Bug#19889 says it blocks 19759 as of 2015-12-18 and there is no indication it was ever unblocked. Conversely, Bug#19759 does not currently list Bug#19889 as a blocker; I don't know why not. If Bug#19889 is supposed to still be a blocker, then the patch should be backported from master to emacs-25.

At any event Bug#19889 seems to be fixed in master, so I am boldly closing it now; if this is wrong we can always reopen it of course.

--- End Message ---

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]