I can speak to 6770449: The solaris/utility/emacs bug category is for bugs in the way emacs is integrated with Solaris. It's not for things that are wrong with emacs itself --- the answer there is to engage with the GNU emacs community.
In the case of 6770449, there is no evident bug in emacs, or in how it is integrated with Solaris, which is why I closed the CR. Emacs is designed to print and error and refuse to run if the specified font isn't available. It seems to be working as designed. The question that needs to be answered is where is this font configuration for `-dt-interface user-medium-r-normal-s*utf*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*' coming from? I can tell you that the emacs packages are not the source of this. Once we know where it's coming from, the solution (and assignment of blame) will be obvious. I find it interesting that both you and the person who submitted 6770449 are hitting the same font --- there must be something systematic going on. In the case of the original submitter (using Nevada 101a), I assumed that he had some old configuration (possibly from CDE) in his home directory, and the change in Nevada fonts caused his problem. You're right that gnomebreakpad has nothing to do with it. That error has something to do with missing 64-bit GTK objects, but not fonts. Emacs on my system prints that message, and then runs fine. - Ali > > 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 >
