From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 12301 invoked from network); 4 Aug 2020 09:30:52 -0000 Received: from lists1.math.uh.edu (129.7.128.208) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 4 Aug 2020 09:30:52 -0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.math.uh.edu) by lists1.math.uh.edu with smtp (Exim 4.94) (envelope-from ) id 1k2tGi-0059sH-VL; Tue, 04 Aug 2020 04:30:01 -0500 Received: from mx1.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.32]) by lists1.math.uh.edu with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94) (envelope-from ) id 1k2tGe-0059qQ-FX for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Tue, 04 Aug 2020 04:29:56 -0500 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([95.216.78.240]) by mx1.math.uh.edu with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94) (envelope-from ) id 1k2tGc-002BZa-OP for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Tue, 04 Aug 2020 04:29:56 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnus.org; s=20200322; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:Date: References:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=mOrGi6ArycXsN7fX5WSjcrsu3Y/JWuhfDyZTsefrAZo=; b=GDcA2xxGABKV5kOkg8iGgWjI2m F6tfnVUhTVOdrVoq9IVLQwo+CLlmA5gDOm7hjDMHmL0t5SWg/Kzsv0p4N6jvrBh3CrawgqJTKMV5S ixkA5IT8nPLsl7PYCqLoforF/7bRhYgB0iqMEY7a6Q5Nonczf/nxl20ZeEadm0tbhNfY=; Received: from cm-84.212.202.86.getinternet.no ([84.212.202.86] helo=xo) by quimby with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1k2tGU-0006Ar-St; Tue, 04 Aug 2020 11:29:49 +0200 From: Lars Ingebrigtsen To: Stephen Berman Cc: 23966@debbugs.gnu.org, ding@gnus.org Subject: Re: bug#23966: 25.1.50; Frame resizing due to tool bar + Gnus References: <87vb09u40u.fsf@gmx.net> <57867BB6.1020601@gmx.at> <87r3axtkcf.fsf@gmx.net> <578754F3.9060800@gmx.at> <87a8hkpmq8.fsf@gmx.net> <5787CCF5.3000404@gmx.at> <87eg6wghgl.fsf@gmx.net> <874lkgtqnk.fsf@mouse.gnus.org> <87h8ofcvqb.fsf@gmx.net> <87wo2zmr20.fsf@gnus.org> <87eep6a6w7.fsf@rub.de> <877duyjzsr.fsf@gnus.org> <87y2neikt1.fsf@gnus.org> Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2020 11:29:45 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87y2neikt1.fsf@gnus.org> (Lars Ingebrigtsen's message of "Mon, 20 Jul 2020 11:43:06 +0200") Message-ID: <87mu3arc6u.fsf@gnus.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain List-ID: Precedence: bulk Lars Ingebrigtsen writes: > As somebody who doesn't use tool bars normally, I'm wondering -- do we > really need two different tool bar styles in Gnus? Can't we just rip > out the `retro' stuff and thing will possibly be less confusing? Perhaps somebody on the Gnus mailing list has some input here. To recap -- there's some bugs in enabling the Summary mode tool bar, because there's some setup being done at Gnus load time. This can be fixed, I'm just wondering whether the proper fix here is to simplify the code. There's currently two tool bars for Gnus summary mode: gnus-summary-tool-bar-retro gnus-summary-tool-bar-gnome I propose to get rid of the -retro one. Does anybody object to that? Or is the -gnome tool bar really specific to Gnome, and it won't work on other OS-es or something? -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no