Re: curses/termcap (was gdbm vs db)
David Engel <david@elo.ods.com> writes:
>I don't see what's wrong with using libncurses.so.3.0. We are using
>it for Debian and haven't had any problems.
Well, it's a bit prettier to only have one numerical component in the
soname. I agree that this is not a major concern, just something that
ought to be changed _if_ we diverge.
>The problem with using termcap is that some programs will use
>/etc/termcap and others will use /usr/lib/terminfo. I'd rather see
>effort put into fixing the termcap emulation bugs in ncurses rather
>than into maintaining and perpetuating termcap.
I'd echo this.
>Debian already *has* standardized on ncurses. Of course, if Zeyd or
>whomever starts changing the ABI willy nilly without concern for
>backwards compatibility, we will probably consider maintaining our own
>version.
(tongue in cheek) You say `starts', I say `continues'. Let's call the
whole thing off :-)
If Zeyd is going to stick with libncurses.so.3.0 for a goodly length
of time, then I agree there's no point in diverging. I suggested a
split because the impression I get is that ncurses developers are
quite sanguine about bopping the soname every time it might be
needed. I'm not saying that they're not concerned about backward
compatibility, but they don't seem to be going through the contortions
that the linux-gcc list are considering to avoid going to libc.so.6
I'd also ask what debian plan to do if/when libc.so.6 is released. Do
you have a plan for this, or are you going leave that bridge uncrossed
until you come to it?
Daniel
--
http://ftp.linux.org.uk/~barlow/, dan@detached.demon.co.uk, PGP key ID 5F263625
``Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative'' --- Oscar Wilde
Reply to: