X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From:	mwoehlke <mwoehlke AT tibco DOT com>
Subject:	Re: Problems with setup colors in snapshot
Date:	Mon, 22 May 2006 19:02:57 -0500
Lines:	44
Message-ID:	<e4tjfh$d7d$2@sea.gmane.org>
References:	<e4t2pp$ci8$1 AT sea DOT gmane DOT org> <Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 63 DOT 0605221811170 DOT 21697 AT access1 DOT cims DOT nyu DOT edu> <e4teqv$p9$1 AT sea DOT gmane DOT org>
Mime-Version:	1.0
User-Agent:	Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (X11/20060420)
In-Reply-To:	<e4teqv$p9$1@sea.gmane.org>
X-IsSubscribed:	yes
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Unsubscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

mwoehlke wrote:
> Igor Peshansky wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 May 2006, mwoehlke wrote:
>>> A while back I posted about the colors in setup.exe. I noticed that the
>>> text background color is fixed but that there is still a problem with
>>> the tree structure; specifically, the clickable [+] and [-] icons are,
>>> on my colors, effectively invisible. On some other color schemes I
>>> tried, they *are* 100% invisible.
>>
>> Yes, this is most likely reproducible (as the foreground color of those
>> icons is *always* black.
>>
>>> 3: If I pick, e.g. (64,0,128) for my window background color, the
>>> tree becomes the *exact* same color as the background.
>>
>> Hmm, weird -- for me the foreground color of the icons is *always*
>> black.
> 
> Unfortunately, a: this isn't the case for me, and b: as you've so 
> astutely pointed out, if it was that would still be problematic :-). (In 
> reality, I've learned that *someone* is always going to exercise poor 
> design and so I usually pick a background light enough for black to be 
> at least marginally visible against it).
> 
>> Theoretically, it should be a simple matter of using MaskBlt instead of
>> BitBlt with the properly configured pen color and the properly set up
>> mask.  In practice, making this work on all platforms (including Win9x),
>> correctly, and with the minimum amount of code changes is a big pain.
> 
> I'm using Win2k3 R2 x64 and (see attached screenshot) I can assure you 
> it doesn't work on my system. Maybe my OS is the problem? (Hmm... yup, 
> the problem has to be Windows ;-).)
> 
> Also, I'd test on my XP system but it is consistently dereferencing a 
> NULL :-(. (On W2k3 R2 it did that *once* and has since run just fine.)

After tweaking and rebuilding 2.529 from the tarball, I can confirm, for 
whatever it's worth, that I see the same behavior on XP. Maybe now that 
I have the sources built I'll be more likely to submit a patch. :-) Time 
permitting, of course.

-- 
Matthew
All of my signatures are 100% original. Including this one.


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -