From owner-freebsd-current Sun Oct 20 11:27:22 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id LAA06769 for current-outgoing; Sun, 20 Oct 1996 11:27:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from precipice.shockwave.com (ppp-206-170-5-89.rdcy01.pacbell.net [206.170.5.89]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA06764 for ; Sun, 20 Oct 1996 11:27:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shockwave.com (localhost.shockwave.com [127.0.0.1]) by precipice.shockwave.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA18340; Sun, 20 Oct 1996 11:26:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199610201826.LAA18340@precipice.shockwave.com> To: cracauer@wavehh.hanse.de (Martin Cracauer) cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: xterm termcap definition In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 20 Oct 1996 20:13:32 +0200." <9610201813.AA26821@wavehh.hanse.de> Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 11:26:16 -0700 From: Paul Traina Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk 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 http://cracauer.cons.org Fax +49 40 522 85 36