On 02.09.2019 15:11, Valery Ushakov wrote: > On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 12:32:51 +0300, Valery Ushakov wrote: > >> Why would we ever want to report this completely random and unrelated >> fact?! >> >> There were years when curses in the tree was unchanged. In the mean >> time we have churned through dozens of netbsd versions. >> >> Why are we trying to over-engineer this? > > So the original claim was that it's needed by qemu. For the reference. I noted that I originally needed it, not that I still need it in qemu. I have patched upstream qemu to stop using it. https://github.com/qemu/qemu/commit/271f37abb510607ca7650e40951284692a67579a Although there are qemu forks in the wild; some of them still need it (at least hqemu is interesting to me). > I've downloaded > qemu-3.1.1, qemu-4.1.0, and qemu.git and I don't see it mentioned > anywhere, grep -r curses_version qemu* returns nothing. > > I've searched github and I see manual pages to curses_version in > various formats, binding for curses_version for various scripting > languages. configure tests that seems to check the presense of > curses_version to detect ncurses. > > NB: have we just broken all those configure scripts? > > I don't see this function actually being used for anything though I > haven't clicked through all the 31K occurrences. > > I cannot really conceive how this function can be useful for anything > other that printing that information as part of some banner. A > program that makes some kind of decision about how to use curses by > inspecting this value at runtime? I'd sooner belive in unicorns :) > > My preference would be to either revert this and pretend it never > happened or to make it return a static string "All your base are > belong to us" b/c we really don't have any meaningful versioning for > our curses and pretending otherwise by returning completely unrelated > netbsd version just makes us look stupid, IMO. (As Christoph noted, > do we now have to bump netbsd version if we make a change in curses? > :) > > I'm sorry I should have joined this bikeshed earlier, but as I said I > didn't realize what was actually going to be committed. I'm sorry I > let Roy to be mobbed into this. > > -uwe > I'm for a static string like "NetBSD Curses"/"NetBSD-Curses" or even "NetBSD" (comparable to "SVR4" in SVR4 Curses"), but Roy insisted on a numerical version. netbsd-curses a downstream fork uses its own versioning model and we do not need to bother with any numbers locally. The current approach is a consensus in that matter.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature