Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 11:26:16 -0700 From: Paul Traina <pst@shockwave.com> To: cracauer@wavehh.hanse.de (Martin Cracauer) Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: xterm termcap definition Message-ID: <199610201826.LAA18340@precipice.shockwave.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 20 Oct 1996 20:13:32 %2B0200." <9610201813.AA26821@wavehh.hanse.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
From: cracauer@wavehh.hanse.de (Martin Cracauer)
Subject: Re: xterm termcap definition
[I assume in this message "X11R6.1 xterm" is equivalent to "xterm from
newer XFree releases].
[About the X11R6.1 entry that has been commited and backed out]
> The new xterm entry is 100% compatible with X11R6.1, the problem was that
> it appears to not be backwards compatible with older X11R6 entries. I
> tested pretty thoroughly on both a sun and a FreeBSD system and had no
> problems myself.
You tested with X11R6.1 xterm on a Sun, I assume?
Yes.
I'd strongly recommend that we use a default entry that works with
X11R5/Openwindows3.0 etc. xterms as well.
I agree 100%. We need a common base, however I think we all agree that
going back to X10R4 is a bit much.
And make the X11R6.1-extended entry availiable under a differnet
name. Just leaves the problems how to point users to the new
capability.
Ding.
> Regarding the alternate screen behaviour:
>
> I think the "alternate screen" feature should *not* be enabled bu
> default, too many people are used to one-screen behaviour (i.e. the
> last screen of output of more/less is still displayed when more
> exits). Eric's and NetBSD's entries have alternate screen enabled and
> should be changes before importing them to FreeBSD. I aplogize for
> overlooking this.
>
> I disagree. The alternate screen behavior is the canonical behavior for
> XTerms. It's been freebsd that's been different all this time, and I recal
> just how much this torqed me off when I switched to freebsd.
At least on Solaris no alternate screen is used.
Alternate screens have been part of XTERM since either R4 or R5,
I don't know which. I don't know why the Solaris termcap/terminfo
may have been dummed down (perhaps out of apathy, like the FreeBSD
termcap).
> I am actually one who uses this feature, but I activate it on
> demand and think it should not be the default. This is not a new XFree
> option, it is present in all my xterms (the actual clients, not the
> termcap entries). AND, as one who uses alternate screen, I would
> really like to have such an entry already present in the termcap
> database under another name. See below.
>
> We may end up calling it xterm-new or something, given that it's xterm
> generic.
>
> IN additional to the unusual behaviour of alternate screen, things in
> FreeBSD are even worse. More's default behaviour is to exit immediatly
> when EOF is hit, so people don't have a chance to see the last page
> when an alternate screen is availiable.
>
> Right, and this is a bug in our more(1). We need to fix it, and we were
> lucky enough to find it with the new xterm entries.
I don't think so. The original less uses an alternate screen everytime
it is availiable. What I feel to be *buggy* is to use the alternate
screen when the option to quit on first EOF is set.
I misunderstood you, I agree with you completely.
It seems we agree that the option to quit on first EOF should not be
the default on FreeBSD. Another change request :-)
Actually, it should bem when alternate screens aren't available. :-) (barf)
>
> One could call it is bug in
> more/less that is alternate screen is used at all when the option to
> exit on the first EOF is set. While I think this should be fixed in
> FreeBSD's more sources (so that end-on-eof enabled more *never* uses
> the second screen), I still think the default xterm shouldn't use an
> alternate screen. Just for people how use an alternate screen (like I
> do sometimes), less should behave in a way that one can see the last
> page :-)
>
> So, I actually ask for these commits:
> - Make the default Xterm entry one from Eric's database, alternate
> screens disabled.
>
> Not a bad idea, once we vette Eric's entry.
>
> - add an entry for TERM=xtermalt with the same contents as "xterm",
> but with alternate screen anabled.
>
> Let's see if we can fix the alternate screen behavior in FreeBSD's executab
>>les.
> I think we should move into the 90's.
I think we'll have to see how many other systems actually use the
alternate screen. I'm not sure using it is cannonical.
> - add an entry for TERM=xfree to useXfree-xterm specific features,
> alternate screens disabled.
> - add the same entry as before, but with alternate screen
> enabled. TERM=xfreealt.
>
> No. More likely we may do one for X11R6.1, and only one of these.
Why? I'm sure having 4 "symmetric" entries is important to give users
a chance to choose the right one:
- xterm without x11r6.1 extensions without alternate screen
- xterm without x11r6.1 extension with alternate screen
- x11r6.1 entry w/o alternate
- x11r6.1 entry with alternate
Fine. I would argue that we shouldn't depart from the standard 6.1 definition,
but I don't have the energy to fight about it.
I think using the alternate screen is a personal preference, while
using x11r6.1 entensions is not. These options has nothing to do with
each other and both should be switchable independent of the
other. Therefore these 4 "symmetric" entries to allow any combination.
Leaving out one entry is bad because it is non-trival to add a new one
(for the user). Leaving out one has no advantage other than using less
space for the termcap database, so, again, I vote for all 4 entries.
The default entry for xterm should be one with the
non-x11r6.1-entries. Which one (alternate screen or not) should be
subject to voting.
FreeBSD is not a democracy. It will be fought out by the core team. :-)
> - rename the former FreeBSD entry instead of removing. You never can
> tell why people could want to revert to it. i.e. TERM=xtermold.
>
> Perhaps... I want to see how much it differs from the ancient entry before
> moving further along that particular path.
I meant, this "compat" entry should be the one that has been in
FreeBSD before the Meta-Key fix, no matter whether the fix is relative
to the old entry or a complete new entry.
> - fix more/less so that the alternate screen is never used when the
> option is set to exit on the first EOF. But use the alternate screen
> when "exit on second EOF is hit", this is one of the things this
> option exists for, to be able to use "auto-exit" on terminals with
> an alternate screen. This suggested change will not alter behaviour
> on non-alternate-screen-enabled xterm termcap entries at all.
>
> Absolutely, some sort of similar fix should be used, however that fix may
> be more on the order of pausing at eof until a key is hit, so that alternat
>>e
> screen usage remains consistent.
I disagree. I really like to have all options:
- Exit immedeatly when EOF is hit first
- Exit when a forward-scrolling key is pressed while more/less is at
EOF
- Exit only on Keystroke reserved for exit
Please keep it that way. I'm not sure FreeBSD's more does it now, but
generic less does it, I like it and I think having these option
doesn't hurt people not using them.
What needs to be fixed is:
- Exit on first EOF should not be the default, which is default in
FreeBSD but not in generic less.
- In exit-on-first-EOF mode the alternate screen, if present, should
not be used.
Martin
--
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Martin Cracauer <cracauer@wavehh.hanse.de>
http://cracauer.cons.org
Fax +49 40 522 85 36
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199610201826.LAA18340>