Hi Alan, On Tue, 9 Dec 2008, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> The comment in bug 6770449 says that it is a configuration error in > specifying an invalid font, not an emacs bugs. (Are you using CDE > perhaps, since you mention the -dt-interface-* fonts?) It is the standard nevada b101 gui environment (gnome based JDS) on a fresh install. No tampering with fonts, account with empty home directory. So 4545 seems right: it may be a distro bug. Looks like emacs uses a default font that doesn't exist. Maybe some CDE fonts missing in nevada but still around in some gnome configuration files? It's strange that I get the same error when compiling emacs from scratch on this b101 installation. There must be a reference to -dt-interface user-medium-r-normal-m*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* somewhere in the system, didn't investigate further. > > As for bug 4545, I don't know what the complaint is about that one, > other than maybe it's been ignored? Found that bug via google. Then there was no additional info besides reassigning to appropriate category. To me it looked like noone would deal with this bug, just like 6770449. I may have overlooked that status is still new and didn't realize that http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/ is solely for OpenSolaris, not for nevada problems. emacs is still important ;-) > > Michael Hase wrote: >> Why is bug 6770449 closed with a remark, that emacs does not run in gtk >> mode? It does run indeed. It seems to be a font problem. The message >> Gtk-Message: Failed to load module "gnomebreakpad": ld.so.1: emacs-gtk:... >> is not critical, the problem is with the error message >> No fonts match `-dt-interface user-medium-r-normal-m*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*' >> I compiled emacs 22.3 on nevada b101 from source and it gets the same font >> error message and immediately dies. When started with another font, eg. >> emacs --font courier >> it runs without a problem. The same is true for the solaris bundled >> /usr/bin/emacs. Don't know why it doesn't startup with the default font. >> >> I think emacs should not be treated like in bug report 6770449, or in >> http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=4545 >> it deserves better ;-) >> >> Cheers, >> Michael > > -- Michael Hase
