On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 02:45:44PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 12:15:16PM -0700, Michael Cardenas wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 12:49:34PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 09:07:48AM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote: > > > > > > > - broken home/end keys in bash in xterm (even in Woody) > > > > > > You'll have to persuade the upstream bash/libreadline cabal that > > > actually supporting DEC VT100 and later terminal emulation is a > > > worthwhile thing to do, instead of half-assing their way through it. > > > > Isn't it the downstream packager's job to take upstream and configure > > it in a usable way for most users? It seems that if the patches > > discussed earlier in this thread work, then whining about upstream > > attitudes is just an excuse for not applying them. > > You need to know whereof you speak before you shoot off your mouth like > this. > > * VT220+ terminal emualtion is a stateful thing. Certain keys have a > one meaning in application-keypad mode, and another meaning in normal > mode. Terminal control sequences can (and will) move the terminal in > and out of application-keypad mode. /etc/inputrc doesn't know how to > express "if the terminal is in application-keypad mode, issue this > escape sequence when the Home key is pressed; else issue this other > escape sequence". Is it safe to say that most people are not concerned with the home and end keys when using keypad mode? If not, maybe a sensible approach would be to offer a debconf question about this issue. ... > * Sometimes Debian developers don't have the skills or knowledge > necessary to fix a problem. Hypothetically, it may be the case that ... > simply expect them to do a good job *packaging* software? I think > not; not unless you're willing to underwrite their educational > expenses. > notice that my comment was prepended with "if the patches discussed earlier in this thread work". > Whining about Debian developers whining about upstream implies that you > expect Debian developers to fix every problem. For instance, I suppose > you expect me as XFree86 package maintainer to "configure XFree86 in a > usable way for most users" that don't even use video cards that XFree86 > supports. > Well, since there was no patch offered in this thread to do so, no, I don't expect that. ... > > If *you're* offended by the home/end issue, perhaps *you* should stop > complaining and put some of your effort to resolving the limitations of > bash/libreadline when it comes to keeping track of the terminal's > application-keypad state. > I'm not, because I don't use xterm. I was speaking about the general case. > Finally, you should be careful to ensure that your words don't get > interpreted as coming from the domain identified in the From: line of > your message, or the organization identified in your .signature, if your > words aren't to be taken as position statements from that company. > Thanks, will do. michael -- michael cardenas | lead software engineer, lindows.com hyperpoem.net | GNU/Linux software developer people.debian.org/~mbc | encrypted mail preferred "How terrible to watch a man who has the Incomprehensible within his grasp, doesn't know what to do, and sits down playing with a toy called God." - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Attachment:
pgp85puQOriHb.pgp
Description: PGP signature