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

Re: ncurses4.0

On 2 May 1997, Michael Alan Dorman wrote:

> Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say, but it seems to
> me that the specific issue you state is hardly an ncurses issue.
> The programs you are using have a responsibility to document what sort
> of terminal they emulate (in almost all of these cases, I would expect
> VT100/102).

They all do say what they emulate usually VT xxx. Sadly this never agrees
in all details with the way ncurses works.

Documentation is needed for how to use the gazillion of emulations ncurses
supports due to the fact that each VT xxx implementation has its
limitations and percularities.

> However, your statements above seem to be suggesting that the ncurses
> people should be responsible for such documentation, which, I think
> you'll agree, is not the proper allocation of responsibility.

I think the lack of documentation makes ncurses unusable and a big pain.
I'd prefer the old termcap over this curse any day. Termcap had
comments at least from which you could guess what was going on.

> > If ncurses4 fixes these problem then I would consider this a very
> > important bug fix for frozen. Never heard of ncurses4 before though.
> This is not suitable for a bug fix, since it would require recompiling
> every binary package that depends on ncurses.

If such a step is necessary to get a working distribution then lets do

TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .

Reply to: