Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 23:19:47 +0200 From: Martin Karlsson <martin.karlsson@visit.se> To: Andy Sparrow <spadger@best.com> Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: xterm and colour (Was: cvs commit: ports/mail/mutt-devel...) Message-ID: <20020504211946.GB497@foo31-146.visit.se> In-Reply-To: <20020504201516.BA9CA3E14@CRWdog.demon.co.uk> References: <martin.karlsson@visit.se> <20020504182649.GA1168@foo31-146.visit.se> <20020504201516.BA9CA3E14@CRWdog.demon.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] * Andy Sparrow <spadger@best.com> [2002-05-04 16.15 -0400]: > > I put a "real" xterm termcap in front of the freebsd one, and > > rebuilt the termcap.db. Works for me. > > Yes, but... Maintaining local hacks like this is so painful when you've > accumulated a bunch of them... > > Much nicer to run an freshly-sup'd version without local hacks. Yes indeed. > > > I run so few color-based text apps that it's not worth the hassle to sort it > > > out (although it is somewhat irritating that we appear to be Doing It Wrong, > > > after it used to work). > > > > I agree. > > Why is this happening anyway? Last thread I saw on the topic turned into a > clash of commiter privs (as in "I have them, it'll be this way"). Beats me. It's sad, though. > Most people want to have local xterms Just Work. In mono by default, but > display color if you run up sysinstall/mutt/ports dialog etc. in an xterm. > > They also want remote xterms to display correctly on their local screens. Yep. > This used to work perfectly with the color customizations in ~/.Xdefaults and > Xterm-color (an acceptable hack, IMHO), but this no longer works. > > Setting TERM=xterm-color (or some other wonky, non-standard value) to get this > is not really acceptable (for me at least). [...snip...] > I think I've just talked myself into doing the local hack - but it seems > unnecessary to me, and it pains me when other people say of my favorite OS: > > : The xterm-color value for $TERM is a bad choice for XFree86 xterm > : because it is commonly used for a terminfo entry which happens to > : not support bce. Complicating matters, FreeBSD (after dithering for > : a few years on the matter) has a bastardized version which implies > : the opposite sense of bce, (because it uses SGR 39 and 49), but > : does not set it. And if a FreeBSD-user asks on a non-freebsd list (something like "Hi, I run freebsd-4.x, how do I get foo to show colour in an xterm?"), and you reply "xterm-color yadda yadda blah", Thomas Dickey appear instantly, pointing his finger saying "FreeBSD is bad!" Not Fun(TM). > Present behaviour just seems flat-out wrong to me. It sure does. Who is responsible? The port (XFree86 ?) maintainer? Someone else? Do you think sending some polite e-mails to The Right Person(TM) would help? Just my 0.02 Swedish Krona -- Martin Karlsson - 0x9C924660 [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (FreeBSD) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE81FByZv+TMpySRmARAnIAAJ47iEUp+1HCFsHvccBNHlGaEpS08QCfWvFC GJMS0HnPIMbfZvNAih1auYY= =s3Ma -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020504211946.GB497>