Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 10:26:05 -0700 From: Paul Traina <pst@shockwave.com> To: cracauer@wavehh.hanse.de Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: xterm termcap definition Message-ID: <199610201726.KAA17317@precipice.shockwave.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 20 Oct 1996 12:37:01 %2B0200." <9610201037.AA23601@wavehh.hanse.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
From: cracauer@wavehh.hanse.de (Martin Cracauer)
Subject: Re: xterm termcap definition
Paul Traina wrote:
>Some folks are complaining about the behavior of the nexw xterm definition.
>I've restored us to the ANCIENT X1 0 compatible xterm definition we had
>a week ago. until we get to ghehthe bottom of things, then I'll move us forward
>to the X11R6 compatible definition again. :-(
As the one who originated a PR to update the xterm entry in termcap
(to be able to use the Meta key in emacs), let me quote from the PR
that Eric Raymond's entries from his termcap database are a better
choice that newest XFree entries, at least they are tested with a wide
range of xterms. And they enable the Meta key. FreeBSD badly needs a
new entry, but the XFree entry is the worst choice. Look at NetBSD,
they have Eric's entry (didn't check for additions, though) and things
work fine. Using the Meta key doesn't need new XFree features.
I know, and I added km to our old entry as a stopgap for now.
Having an XFree entry with the new options as TERM=xfree or xfreeterm
or something like it would make sense, although I have no idea how
people should tell that such an option is availiable. Really, I have
now Idea how they could be so ignorant to add their extensions to the
default xterm entry (where they?). They need a new name for their
xterm to identify itself and then match it in a new termcap
entry. That way, things will no longer work when logging in from a new
xterm to a box without the new termcap entry, but I think that is the
smaller evil compared to misbehaviour everytime someone loggs in from
an old xterm to a XFree box.
The new xterm entry is 100% compatible with X11R6.1, the problem was that
it appears to not be backwards compatible with older X11R6 entries. I
tested pretty thoroughly on both a sun and a FreeBSD system and had no
problems myself.
Regarding the alternate screen behaviour:
I think the "alternate screen" feature should *not* be enabled bu
default, too many people are used to one-screen behaviour (i.e. the
last screen of output of more/less is still displayed when more
exits). Eric's and NetBSD's entries have alternate screen enabled and
should be changes before importing them to FreeBSD. I aplogize for
overlooking this.
I disagree. The alternate screen behavior is the canonical behavior for
XTerms. It's been freebsd that's been different all this time, and I recall
just how much this torqed me off when I switched to freebsd.
I am actually one who uses this feature, but I activate it on
demand and think it should not be the default. This is not a new XFree
option, it is present in all my xterms (the actual clients, not the
termcap entries). AND, as one who uses alternate screen, I would
really like to have such an entry already present in the termcap
database under another name. See below.
We may end up calling it xterm-new or something, given that it's xterm
generic.
IN additional to the unusual behaviour of alternate screen, things in
FreeBSD are even worse. More's default behaviour is to exit immediatly
when EOF is hit, so people don't have a chance to see the last page
when an alternate screen is availiable.
Right, and this is a bug in our more(1). We need to fix it, and we were
lucky enough to find it with the new xterm entries.
One could call it is bug in
more/less that is alternate screen is used at all when the option to
exit on the first EOF is set. While I think this should be fixed in
FreeBSD's more sources (so that end-on-eof enabled more *never* uses
the second screen), I still think the default xterm shouldn't use an
alternate screen. Just for people how use an alternate screen (like I
do sometimes), less should behave in a way that one can see the last
page :-)
So, I actually ask for these commits:
- Make the default Xterm entry one from Eric's database, alternate
screens disabled.
Not a bad idea, once we vette Eric's entry.
- add an entry for TERM=xtermalt with the same contents as "xterm",
but with alternate screen anabled.
Let's see if we can fix the alternate screen behavior in FreeBSD's executables.
I think we should move into the 90's.
- add an entry for TERM=xfree to useXfree-xterm specific features,
alternate screens disabled.
- add the same entry as before, but with alternate screen
enabled. TERM=xfreealt.
No. More likely we may do one for X11R6.1, and only one of these.
- rename the former FreeBSD entry instead of removing. You never can
tell why people could want to revert to it. i.e. TERM=xtermold.
Perhaps... I want to see how much it differs from the ancient entry before
moving further along that particular path.
- fix more/less so that the alternate screen is never used when the
option is set to exit on the first EOF. But use the alternate screen
when "exit on second EOF is hit", this is one of the things this
option exists for, to be able to use "auto-exit" on terminals with
an alternate screen. This suggested change will not alter behaviour
on non-alternate-screen-enabled xterm termcap entries at all.
Absolutely, some sort of similar fix should be used, however that fix may
be more on the order of pausing at eof until a key is hit, so that alternate
screen usage remains consistent.
I have no idea if one of the committers will jump on my change
requests - should they be considered useful - and just do
it. Otherwise, I'll send PRs and this time include everything (diffs,
termcap entries) that is needed (after testing it). I just don't want
to waste my time, so please drop me a note when you want me to do one
or more of the following:
- send the new 5 termcap entries in tested form, with the behaviour
listed above.
- send diffs for more/less (after you made a decision whether my
suggested behaviour makes sense).
One should get in contact with XFree to discuss things. Do they realy
have a default xterm termcap entry that doesn't work when logged in
from non-Xfree xterms? I can't beleive it. Do they feel they're alone
in the world (Could drop a nasty comment about Linux here)? Is there
some XFree hacker on this list?
The present situation wasn't exactly what I demanded with my PR to
update the xterm termcap entry. I'll be more precise in my next one,
although I really couldn't forsee that some incompaible newer xterm
exists and would be used.
Martin
--
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Martin Cracauer <cracauer@wavehh.hanse.de> http://www.bik-gmbh.de/~cracauer
"As far as I'm concerned, if something is so complicated that you can't ex-"
"plain it in 10 seconds, then it's probably not worth knowing anyway"- Calvin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199610201726.KAA17317>