From owner-svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Dec 13 08:49:10 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE1181065670; Sun, 13 Dec 2009 08:49:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from netch@segfault.kiev.ua) Received: from segfault.kiev.ua (segfault.kiev.ua [193.193.193.4]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EE2E8FC17; Sun, 13 Dec 2009 08:49:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from segfault.kiev.ua (localhost.segfault.kiev.ua [127.0.0.1]) by segfault.kiev.ua (8.14.3/8.14.3/8.Who.Cares) with ESMTP id nBD8bUFb076678; Sun, 13 Dec 2009 10:37:30 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from netch@segfault.kiev.ua) Received: (from netch@localhost) by segfault.kiev.ua (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id nBD8bPuH076675; Sun, 13 Dec 2009 10:37:25 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from netch) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 10:37:25 +0200 From: Valentin Nechayev To: Garrett Wollman Message-ID: <20091213083725.GH1260@netch.kiev.ua> References: <200912102225.nBAMPrZx076758@svn.freebsd.org> <19235.10488.325168.267306@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <19235.10488.325168.267306@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> X-42: On Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Hajimu UMEMOTO Subject: Re: svn commit: r200369 - in head: etc share/termcap X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: netch@netch.kiev.ua List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 08:49:10 -0000 Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 00:24:08, wollman wrote about "Re: svn commit: r200369 - in head: etc share/termcap": > > It's great, thank!! > > I believe that our xterm entry was modified not to clear screen when > > applications such as less(1) are terminated. Are there any chance to > > back to the behavior? > > > > I don't understand why people put up with the unspeakably obnoxious > "alternate screen" behavior. Please don't tell me someone actually > thinks it's *useful*. I also vote for old variant. If anybody wants to keep previous screen contents, there are many ways for this (another xterm, screen, less, etc.), and all they are more predictable and controllable than alternate screen which isn't loggable and isn't provided by many terminal implementations. -netch-