Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 13:27:18 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: kientzle@acm.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP: /bin and /sbin are now dynamically linked Message-ID: <20031123131536.M3946@gamplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <20031122.184733.32325352.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <20031121010211.GD84421@saboteur.dek.spc.org> <20031123112720.J3301@gamplex.bde.org> <20031122.184733.32325352.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003, M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <20031123112720.J3301@gamplex.bde.org> > Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> writes: > : On Sat, 22 Nov 2003, M. Warner Losh wrote: > : > Timing Solutions uses the following minimal termcap for its embedded > : > applications. It has a number of terminals that it supports, while > : > still being tiny. it is 3.5k in size, which was the goal ( < 4k block > : > size we were using). One could SED this down by another 140 bytes or > : > so. Removing the comments and the verbose names would net another 300 > : > odd bytes. > : > : What's wrong with FreeBSD's /usr/src/etc/termcap.small, except it is > : twice as large and has a weird selection of entries (zillions of > : variants of cons25, dosansi and pc3). > > Mine is better because it has a more representative slice of currently > used terminal types. Maybe we should replace termcap.small with mine > (maybe with the copyright notice). I agree. termcap.small is amazingly uncurrent. However, perhaps some merging and reducing is in order. Why is a full cons25 or vt2xx needed? vi only needs a few capabilities. I think we mostly use copies of large termcap entries because copying the whole things is easier. Bruce Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031123131536.M3946>