Subject: Re: ttermcap [was re: pcvt problems]
To: Jonathan Stone <jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU>
From: Robin Carey <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 08/06/1996 10:05:00
On Wed, 31 Jul 1996, Jonathan Stone wrote:
> I should have make it clear that my primary interest is in
> internetworking. Even a late-1980s telnet can and does automagically
> propagate a TERMCAP string --one *I* can specify -- from my local
> machine to anywhere I choose to telnet. I don't know any good way to
> do this with terminfo. If there was a way to do this, I'd be happier
> with terminfo.
> I think it's an issue of control. Who has the opportunity to specify
> what the capabilities of my terminal actually are, given its $TERM
> name: me, or just some remote sysadmin? Termcap says both
> can. Terminfo says only the latter. I should've made that distinction
> clear earlier.
> My experience in a university/research environment is that this is a
> real issue, when using telnet or rlogin to some system that doesn't
> have a terminfo or termcap entry for the device I happen to be
> using. There are sysadmins out there that never update whatever
> terminfo/termcap databese the vendor ships.
> If someone wanted to add the ability to parse and use TERMCAP
> environment variables to terminfo, I'd probably be happy to use it.
> The compiler-based terminfo design doesn't seem to make that easily
> doable without burying a termcap-to-terminfo translator *and* a
> terminfo compiler into the terminfo library.
> Is a hashed-termcap-databse-with-4k-buffer completely out of the question?
> Would termcap strings longer than bytes break too many other termcap libraries?
> Unless it's a transient error, the existing pcvt entry seems to suggest not...
I don't know much about terminfo, but have played with termcap(3,5).
I think termcap is a good system.
Wouldn't an easy solution to this problem be to add a new function to the
termcap interface, which allows one to measure the size of a termcap entry
keyed by the name of the terminal type. Thus, instead of giving a termcap
routine a 1K buffer, and assuming that the termcap entry is smller than
1K, one calls a function which determines the size of a termcap entry,
allocate or declare a buffer of that size, and then call the normal
routine to fill the buffer out .... ? Or one could just return a pointer
to allocated memory, and change a pointer to a size_t ...
Increasing the buffer to 4K doesn't seem like a good idea to me, as this
would probably mean that the same problem would occur again , sometime in
the future ...
If anyone thinks this is a good idea or has other ideas about this, let
me know, as I was thinking about fixing/re-writing termcap for my own