Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 12:32:46 +0100 From: Gary Jennejohn <gary.jennejohn@freenet.de> To: Dag-Erling =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no> Cc: Leonidas Tsampros <ltsampros@upnet.gr>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: old/unupdated xterm entries in termcap db Message-ID: <20091209123246.22b9ecc3@ernst.jennejohn.org> In-Reply-To: <86ws0w4c8e.fsf@ds4.des.no> References: <86d42pjc1n.fsf@bifteki.lan> <20091209122532.2c55aa22@ernst.jennejohn.org> <86ws0w4c8e.fsf@ds4.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 12:29:21 +0100 Dag-Erling Sm__rgrav <des@des.no> wrote: > Gary Jennejohn <gary.jennejohn@freenet.de> writes: > > Leonidas Tsampros <ltsampros@upnet.gr> writes: > > > Why aren't these entries updated in order to match the ones that > > > ship with xterm? Am I missing something? > > Probably because xterm is under ports and termcap under src and it > > would not be easy to track changes in ports under src. > > > > The only practical way to keep termcap up to date would be for the > > committer updating the port to also check and update termcap under src. > > The problem with this is that most ports committers aren't authorized > > to make commits under src. > > That's not an issue - termcaps don't change all that often. We should > just import the new definitions. > That's a practical attitude, but it begs the question why it hasn't happened in the past. --- Gary Jennejohn
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20091209123246.22b9ecc3>