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

Bug#254316: CJK font fails after running slang/ncurses program



reassign 254316 ncurses-base
retitle 254316 ncurses-base: workaround for screen's handling of register sgr0 isn't quite right
tag 254316 + upstream
thanks

Sorry for the unhelpful bug title; I don't quite understand *exactly* what
the problem is.  Nevertheless, my faith in Thomas and Juliusz is strong.

On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 08:41:15PM -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 10:30:12PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
>  
> > This clobbers G1.  It works in ISO 8859-n locales because there's a
> > workaround in luit (luit uses G2 instead of G1 for such locales).
> > While there's in principle nothing preventing the same workaround to
> > work for Big5 locales, the problem with EUC will remain.
> > 
> > The proper fix is to use the following in the xterm cap:
> > 
> >   enacs=
> >   rmacs=\E(B
> >   smacs=\E(0
> > 
> > This only uses G0, and works in any locale that has ASCII in G0, which
> > includes all standard Unix locales.
> 
> however - I noticed this week that my workaround for screen's handling
> of sgr0 (termcap "me") doesn't work for this case.  I made a fix tonight
> (since I'm looking for similar issues), and _that_ will be in my next
> ncurses patch -- but I'm not certain when I'll finish resolving ongoing
> breakage in the form library (perhaps this weekend).
>  
> > Branden: please reassign this to ncurses-base and mark it upstream.
> 
> that's the proper place, since I've already made the changes in both xterm
> and ncurses
> 
> -- 
> Thomas E. Dickey <dickey@invisible-island.net>
> http://invisible-island.net
> ftp://invisible-island.net

-- 
G. Branden Robinson                |     There is resilient security in
Debian GNU/Linux                   |     openness, and brittle security in
branden@debian.org                 |     secrecy.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |     -- Bruce Schneier

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: