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

[GNU bug Tracking System]

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
address@hidden)


-- 
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:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=684797
>
>
> 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
> > problems.
>
> 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 ---