| 1 |
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 8:52:13 +0200 "Kevin F. Quinn" |
| 2 |
<kevquinn@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
| On 21/8/2005 23:05:05, Ciaran McCreesh (ciaranm@g.o) wrote: |
| 4 |
| > Now the proposal. This isn't something that can happen immediately, |
| 5 |
| > but it's something I'd like to see us working towards: |
| 6 |
| > |
| 7 |
| > [...] |
| 8 |
| > |
| 9 |
| > * De-cripple the standard xterm definition and remove restrictions |
| 10 |
| > from programs which can make full use of xterm's capabilities. |
| 11 |
| |
| 12 |
| This bit, obviously, has to wait until at least the more common |
| 13 |
| packages have been adjusted for their own TERM value. In the |
| 14 |
| interim, how about creating a 'xtermstd' entry with the de-crippled |
| 15 |
| definition, and altering the (presumably few) packages that supply |
| 16 |
| fully-compatible xterms to use that, with a view to changing them |
| 17 |
| back to 'xterm' later once the rest of the world is in line. |
| 18 |
| |
| 19 |
| I think it's also worth considering leaving the existing xterm entry |
| 20 |
| crippled, and just accept that abuse of it is too entrenched and |
| 21 |
| widespread to fix. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Hrm, I'd really rather not do that, on the grounds that it's a nasty |
| 24 |
hack and that it encourages people to carry on abusing TERM. By leaving |
| 25 |
xterm crippled in the long term, we're in effect saying "it's ok to |
| 26 |
pretend to be an xterm", which it isn't. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron) |
| 30 |
Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org |
| 31 |
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm |
Archives