[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: bin/39883 (tput support for setaf terminfo sequence is broken)
The following reply was made to PR bin/39883; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: jnemeth%cornerstoneservice.ca@localhost (John Nemeth)
To: David Holland <dholland-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost>,
Subject: Re: bin/39883 (tput support for setaf terminfo sequence is broken)
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 19:01:33 -0700
On Mar 14, 6:42pm, David Holland wrote:
} On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 07:10:26PM +0000, jnemeth%NetBSD.org@localhost wrote:
} > Just because something is fixed in -current does not mean it doesn't need
} > to be fixed on the branches. PRs shouldn't be closed until the problem
} > is fixed on all relevant branches or it is determined that it is too
} > difficult.
} This is very true; however, I don't think terminfo is going to be
} pulled up to -5 (let alone -4) and it's really not practical to try to
} handle terminfo codes some other way there. Even if someone wanted to
} spend time writing a translation table for terminfo capabilities,
} realistically they wouldn't be likely to ever get around to it.
} I suppose tput should exit 1 when asked for an unknown capability
} though; would fixing that be sufficient?
That would be sufficient. I seem to recall more discussion
on the issue, but I guess it was on a mailing list. I think the
idea was that if somebody asked for a capability more then two
letters long that tput would exit with an error. The problem was
that tgetstr() simply truncated to two characters, so "setaf" became
"se" (standout end).
}-- End of excerpt from David Holland
Main Index |
Thread Index |