Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 17 Jan 2002 12:37:52 +0100 (CET)
From:      Harti Brandt <brandt@fokus.gmd.de>
To:        Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.ORG>
Cc:        Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@toybox.placo.com>, <arch@FreeBSD.ORG>, <jasone@canonware.com>
Subject:   Re: termcap versus terminfo
Message-ID:  <20020117123219.R67162-100000@beagle.fokus.gmd.de>
In-Reply-To: <20020117120319.L27310@sunbay.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:

RE>On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 01:44:39AM -0800, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
RE>>
RE>> For starters I'm not particularly a terminfo supporter, my main
RE>> concern is seeing something that's easy to use and works.  But
RE>> I feel the current FreeBSD scheme doesen't work - at least not
RE>> from an administration standpoint.
RE>>
RE>> The current FreeBSD scheme with the compiled termcap.db
RE>> has terrible documentation.  In fact the only mention of the
RE>> need to use cap_mkdb to build termcap.db is in the cap_mkdb
RE>> man page, and it's not even a mention, it's just a link in
RE>> SEE ALSO.  It's not mentioned in the man page for termcap.
RE>>
RE>Not true.  It's referenced from the FILES section of termcap(5).
RE>
RE>> I don't see as how any admin is going to figure out how to add a terminal
RE>> description other than trial and error so what "user friendliness" gained by
RE>> holding to the human-readable /etc/termcap format is lost in the current
RE>> scheme and really shouldn't be an issue to use in deciding between
RE>> termcap and terminfo.
RE>>
RE>What's wrong with reading termcap(5)?  :-)

It's misleading because of numerous references to terminfo(5). So we have
a terminfo man page, but no terminfo. terminfo(5) in turn refers to
term(5) which describes files we don't use.

harti

NB: neither terminfo nor termcap is in the new POSIX. The only mention
there is to 'historic implementations [of displays] which use either
termcap or terminfo' :-) So, from the standard point of view, we are free
to do it either way.

-- 
harti brandt, http://www.fokus.gmd.de/research/cc/cats/employees/hartmut.brandt/private
              brandt@fokus.fhg.de


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020117123219.R67162-100000>