From owner-freebsd-current Mon Apr 28 09:46:32 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id JAA23776 for current-outgoing; Mon, 28 Apr 1997 09:46:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nagual.pp.ru (ache.relcom.ru [194.58.229.133]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA23771 for ; Mon, 28 Apr 1997 09:46:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from ache@localhost) by nagual.pp.ru (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA01092; Mon, 28 Apr 1997 20:45:48 +0400 (MSD) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 20:45:43 +0400 (MSD) From: =?KOI8-R?B?4c7E0sXKIP7F0s7P1w==?= To: John-Mark Gurney cc: Vincent Poy , David Nugent , current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: termcap question In-Reply-To: <19970428011900.36864@hydrogen.nike.efn.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Mon, 28 Apr 1997, John-Mark Gurney wrote: > would anybody object to making tset understand the convention that > termcap(5) mentions about -n being number of lines? i.e. you don't have > to have a definition for cons-30, but tset will see the -30 and > automaticly set the rows to 30?? that would simplify and eliminate > entries that are currently duplicated... (cons25, cons30, cons43, cons50, > and cons60 are greate examples of this) I don't think it worse to do it, we need to keep multiply entries for other (non-FreeBSD) machines in any case. -- Andrey A. Chernov http://www.nagual.pp.ru/~ache/