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

Re: Bug#9813: rxvt 2.20-4 : Bad setting of TERM environ variable



Brian Mays <brian@debian.org> writes:

> rxvt (and rxvt-xpm) always exports the variable "COLORTERM" so that programs 
> can check for color support.  As a side note, when XPM support has been 

Unfortunately, I know of no programs that make use of this variable.
In fact, I believe that ncurses doesn't even use it.

> compiled into rxvt (as with rxvt-xpm supplied in Debian's rxvt package), the 
> value of COLORTERM is set to "rxvt-xpm" instead of "rxvt".

Which could be a bug in itself since Debian has no rxvt-xmp terminfo entry.

[zap]

> I can rebuild rxvt to set TERM=xterm-color (there are not many differences 
> between the terminfo entries for rxvt and xterm-color).  However, if we are to 
> do things absolutely the correct way, I suppose that Debian should provide a 
> "rxvt" terminfo entry and a "rxvt-color" entry (with color support as the only 
> difference between the two).  Then rxvt would set TERM=rxvt-color when running 
> on a display with Xdepth > 2 and TERM=rxvt otherwise.

I would suggest that rxvt set TERM to rxvt when on a color display and
to xterm when on a non-color display.  The rxvt entry in terminfo
already has color support; the xterm entry is monochrome.  Since rxvt
is backwards-compatible with xterm, this would seem to be the proper
method.  It would cause the least fuss while ensuring proper behavior
in all situations.

Even if this isn't done, I suggest that the default be set to rxvt.
After all, we have the terminfo entry for it, it doesn't make any
sense not to use it.  

I suspect that rxvt would behave properly in this case even if it is
on a 1-bit (B&W) display.

-- 
John Goerzen          | Running Debian GNU/Linux (www.debian.org)
Custom Programming    | 
jgoerzen@complete.org | 


--
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: