Jan,
Thanks for responding. I'm sorry that you didn't get much useful
information from my initial report. Please let me try again, and I
will make an effort to be clearer this time.
First, I'd like to provide you with some system information.
Operating System:
(1:0)srevilak:~$ cat /etc/SuSE-release openSUSE 11.2 (i586)
VERSION = 11.2
(0:0)srevilak:~$ uname -a
Linux srevilak 2.6.31.5-0.1-desktop #1 SMP PREEMPT 2009-10-26 15:49:03
+0100 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
Window Manager:
(0:0)srevilak:~$ kde4-config --version
Qt: 4.5.3
KDE: 4.3.1 (KDE 4.3.1) "release 6"
kde4-config: 1.0
Contents of .Xresources (a single line, containing a comment):
(0:0)srevilak:~$ cat .Xresources
! .Xresources
Contents of .emacs (a single line, containing a comment):
(0:0)srevilak:~$ cat .emacs
; .emacs
Finally, to be sure that ~/.Xresources agrees with our current
environment.
(0:0)srevilak:~$ xrdb .Xresources
First, I will start emacs with the command line
/usr/local/emacs-23.1.91/bin/emacs --no-init-file --no-site-file
-geometry 86x44-0+0
figure-1.png shows a snapshot of my screen after starting emacs. As
you can see, emacs occupies most of the vertical space on the screen.
Next, I will quit emacs, then run the following command line
/usr/local/emacs-23.1.91/bin/emacs --no-init-file --no-site-file
-geometry 86x45-0+0
Notice that I have increased the height from 44 to 45, which is just a
little too large to fit on the screen; the rest of the command line is
unchanged. The result of this appears in figure-2.png.
Observe that figure-1.png and figure-2.png are quite different.
As you noted before, this could be the Window Manager's doing. For my
third (and final) snapshot, I would like to provide evidence which
suggests that it is not the window manager.
/usr/bin/emacs --no-init-file --no-site-file -geometry 86x45-0+0
Above, /usr/bin/emacs is emacs 23.1.1, as packaged with OpenSUSE 11.2
(you'll see this from emacs' splash screen). The result of running
this command appears in figure-3.png. As you can see, figure-3.png
resembles figure-1.png much more than figure-2.png.
The difference between figure-2.png and figure-3.png is the core of my
issue. Specifically,
* When Emacs-23.1.1 is confronted with a geometry that is too large
for the height of the screen, then emacs-23.1.1 respects the
geometry as best as it can. In figure-3.png, we see that
Emacs-23.1.1 took up as much of the vertical screen space as was
possible.
* When Emacs-23.1.91 is confronted with a geometry that is too large
for the height of the screen, then emacs-23.1.91 does not try to
respect the geometry as best as it can. As you can see from
figure-2.png, emacs-23.1.91 opted for a much smaller height. (In
figure-2.png, you can also see a very different appearance in the
splash screen itself.)
In summary, I believe that the behavior shown in figure-3.png
(produced by
emacs-23.1.1) is more correct than the behavior shown in figure-2.png
(produced by emacs-23.1.91).
Please let me know if you'd like me to provide any additional details.
Steve Revilak