Re: bin/39883 (tput support for setaf terminfo sequence is broken)

[jnemeth%cornerstoneservice.ca@localhost (John Nemeth)]

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>, 
gnats-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost
Cc: mikel%mikelward.com@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