From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 4 08:46:46 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFAEF16A4D4 for ; Tue, 4 Nov 2003 08:46:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2178443FE0 for ; Tue, 4 Nov 2003 08:46:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eischen@vigrid.com) Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4]) by mail.pcnet.com (8.12.10/8.12.1) with ESMTP id hA4Gkd1G004719; Tue, 4 Nov 2003 11:46:39 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 11:46:39 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen X-Sender: eischen@pcnet5.pcnet.com To: Erik Trulsson In-Reply-To: <20031104162148.GA31794@falcon.midgard.homeip.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: Chris Pressey cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Serious (ha-ha) bug in 4.9-RELEASE X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: deischen@freebsd.org List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 16:46:47 -0000 On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, Erik Trulsson wrote: > On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 07:49:36AM -0800, Michael Sierchio wrote: > > Brian T. Schellenberger wrote: > > > > > > >OTOH, the fact that nobody seems to have noticed until after 4.9 was > > >released is a pretty strong argument that not very many people > > >care--unless of course :-) > > > > Arrrrghhhh! It was a stupid fscking idea to make > > arbitrary changes to something that hadn't really changed > > in a decade (or more). > > I don't think the changes were exactly arbitrary. > >From the comments in termcap.src I would say that the new version seems > to be based (quite closely) on the termcap desctriptions supplied by > the XFree86 people. From browsing their CVS repository it seems they > dropped the "bs" capability from their xterm entry some 7 years ago. > It has also been in 4-STABLE for about 6 months (and in -CURRENT for > about 7 months before that), so it is not exactly as if it was a new > and untested change that made it into 4.9-RELEASE. > > Many people wanted support for various new features in xterm (like > support for color in a standard xterm.) > To get those, the termcap entry needed to be updated. > The easiest (and least bug-prone) way of doing that seems to be to > import the termcap entries provided by XFree86 (who, after all, should > know what xterm looks like.) > > > > > And I don't track -STABLE on all machines, so this change > > didn't appear in RELENG_4_8. > > The changes were made after 4.8-RELEASE, so they wouldn't have appeared > in RELENG_4_8. > > > > > Especially since it affects such a *critical* application ;-) > > Very critical indeed... And with such a huge userbase that it took six > months before anybody noticed this problem. :-) No, we noticed it here at work where we use Sun Solaris boxes as our development systems. I didn't know what the problem was until now. It is very very annoying to have man, more, less, etc, screw up your display when using them while remotely logged in to our FreeBSD boxes. The symptoms are that everything gets highlighted and underlined and it stays that way forcing you to close the xterm and open another. If we set TERM to xterm-r6 or xterm-r5, then everything seems to work OK. I hate how xterm defaults to color-capable. If it were only up to me, it wouldn't. -- Dan Eischen