Re: ncurses build options...
> On Fri, 8 Dec 1995, Jeff Noxon wrote:
> > If the ncurses guys are going to keep blowing off binary compatibility,
> > then perhaps we should not mess with ncurses at all.
> I suspect, especially now that we've got the package load spread around
> more, that Debian will be able to keep up.
I'm just concerned that this is a losing battle. It might be fine for
static libraries, but for shared libraries to be effective they need to
remain compatible from one version to the next.
> Well, it's supposed to be faster, and, of course, BSD curses is no longer
I don't think BSD curses really needs support. I wish it wasn't such a pain
to support two curses implementations at once. (It's a nightmare)
As for faster, it is somewhat, but it's also a lot buggier at the moment.
> That doesn't necessarily excuse any of this mind you --- I've been on the
> ncurses list for all of a day and a half and I'm already hearing about
> 1.9.8 which apparently has some showstopper bugs that were reported but
> not fixed in time for the release.
I have several months of the ncurses list archived. If anyone is interested
in having a copy of the archive, please let me know how to deliver it. :)
> I suspect that the distributed packaging responsibility will make it
> unlikely that it will get that bad --- one or two versions, maybe, tops.
Hmm. I'll be happy if we can just get a stable version, I suppose.
This is going to be a big problem for Linux binary compatibility between