Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 12:03:19 +0200 From: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@toybox.placo.com> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG, jasone@canonware.com Subject: Re: termcap versus terminfo Message-ID: <20020117120319.L27310@sunbay.com> In-Reply-To: <001501c19f3b$94c35280$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> References: <001501c19f3b$94c35280$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 01:44:39AM -0800, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > For starters I'm not particularly a terminfo supporter, my main > concern is seeing something that's easy to use and works. But > I feel the current FreeBSD scheme doesen't work - at least not > from an administration standpoint. > > The current FreeBSD scheme with the compiled termcap.db > has terrible documentation. In fact the only mention of the > need to use cap_mkdb to build termcap.db is in the cap_mkdb > man page, and it's not even a mention, it's just a link in > SEE ALSO. It's not mentioned in the man page for termcap. > Not true. It's referenced from the FILES section of termcap(5). > I don't see as how any admin is going to figure out how to add a terminal > description other than trial and error so what "user friendliness" gained by > holding to the human-readable /etc/termcap format is lost in the current > scheme and really shouldn't be an issue to use in deciding between > termcap and terminfo. > What's wrong with reading termcap(5)? :-) Cheers, -- Ruslan Ermilov Oracle Developer/DBA, ru@sunbay.com Sunbay Software AG, ru@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer, +380.652.512.251 Simferopol, Ukraine http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve http://www.oracle.com Enabling The Information Age To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020117120319.L27310>