[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: terminal types, cfdisk

On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 08:48:39PM +0100, Richard Hirst wrote:
>   root.bin has terminfo entries only for "ansi" and "linux".  busybox
> init defaults to TERM=linux, but overwrites that with TERM=vt102 if
> on a serial console.  Attempts to run cfdisk with TERM= set to a
> value for which there is no terminfo result in:
> S-Lang Error: Unknown Error Code
> SLcurses_initscr: init failed
> So, should busybox set TERM=ansi on serial consoles, or should root.bin
> include terminfo for vt102?

Personally, I'd rather have the boot floppies include the vt102
terminfo entry.  On this system, it appears to be 1137 bytes.  Did
Adam give you CVS write permission yet?

> When cfdisk fails due to bad termtype, you get this this dialog
>         +-----------------+ Invalid Partition Table +-----------------+
>         |                                                             | 
>         | cfdisk has failed while trying to repartition your disk.    | 
>         | That may mean your disk's partition table is corrupt, or    | 
>         | your disk is `factory clean'.                               | 
>         | It often helps to wipe out your disk's current partition    | 
>         | table and run cfdisk again.                                 | 
>         | WARNING: You will lose any data currently on that disk.     | 
>         | Are you sure you want me to do this?                        | 
>         |                                                             | 
>         |                     <Yes>       <No>                        | 
>         +-------------------------------------------------------------+ 
> The default is <yes>, which seems rather dangerous, at least.  I didn't
> think the text was very clear either, "Are you sure..." usually follows
> you making some choice, which you havn't here.  The last line might
> better read  "Do you want me to wipe the disk partition table?", with
> the WARNING line below it, rather than above.

That sounds good to me.


Reply to: