Bug#91252: PROPOSED] enhanced x-terminal-emulator policy, second try
On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 02:22:54AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> --- policy.sgml Sun Mar 25 01:34:33 2001
> +++ policy.sgml.x-terminal-emulator Sun Mar 25 02:17:56 2001
> @@ -5976,13 +5976,31 @@
>
> <p>
> <em>Packages that provide a terminal emulator</em> for the X
> - Window System which support a terminal type with a terminfo
> - description provided in the <tt>ncurses-base</tt> package
> - should declare in their control data that they provide the
> - virtual package <tt>x-terminal-emulator</tt>. They should
> - also register themselves as an alternative for
> - <tt>/usr/bin/x-terminal-emulator</tt>, with a priority of
> - 20.
> + Window System which meet the criteria listed below should declare
> + in their control data that they provide the virtual package
> + <tt>x-terminal-emulator</tt>. They should also register
> + themselves as an alternative for
> + <tt>/usr/bin/x-terminal-emulator</tt>, with a priority of 20.
> + </p>
> +
> + <p>To be an <tt>x-terminal-emulator</tt>, a program must:
> + <list>
> + <item>Be able to emulate a DEC VT100 terminal, or a compatible
> + terminal.<item>
are there testing utilities available such that one could
check that something is in fact 'vt100 compatible' ?
--
Brian Russo <brusso@phys.hawaii.edu>
Debian/GNU Linux <wolfie@debian.org> http://www.debian.org
LPSG "member" <wolfie@lpsg.org> http://www.lpsg.org
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Reply to: