From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.9 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, FREEMAIL_FROM,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MALFORMED_FREEMAIL,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 27169 invoked from network); 22 Jul 2020 08:24:29 -0000 Received: from ns1.primenet.com.au (HELO primenet.com.au) (203.24.36.2) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 22 Jul 2020 08:24:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 12029 invoked by alias); 22 Jul 2020 08:24:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-users-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Users List List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: zsh-users@zsh.org X-Seq: 24998 Received: (qmail 19737 invoked by uid 1010); 22 Jul 2020 08:24:19 -0000 X-Qmail-Scanner-Diagnostics: from sonic317-28.consmr.mail.bf2.yahoo.com by f.primenet.com.au (envelope-from , uid 7791) with qmail-scanner-2.11 (clamdscan: 0.102.3/25877. spamassassin: 3.4.4. Clear:RC:0(74.6.129.83):SA:0(-0.1/5.0):. Processed in 2.928249 secs); 22 Jul 2020 08:24:19 -0000 X-Envelope-From: okiddle@yahoo.co.uk X-Qmail-Scanner-Mime-Attachments: | X-Qmail-Scanner-Zip-Files: | Received-SPF: pass (ns1.primenet.com.au: SPF record at _spf.mail.yahoo.com designates 74.6.129.83 as permitted sender) X-YMail-OSG: bbANIH4VM1l_fcwFmF4MgXZlB._4tZPwwIIf7z5qeKLWP1guO5neVjh7cksUO4. Af4uxuubK1YK6lpjBsiCrM5URsoUt5r5GMQlwZyuYlKonS7_FX.G30R9yrEGIuPCzOR7e98eh0oc 5AEPV5sSaZ5g6JpmAY1Zz6NGSLveLiD2ddpIEezOZ.ZUExYwDBwbVuipDc2cJtWf09gScAVkW95x kyfEedzXMADW8Wv8rxJgHWNaMYao6UR9EnxJPqr2F5vd252aGSoN7yTO7VC6255a287uARsL5u1q xOUXZv3nCYY5ELU_anB4jvsoZLBrccq50fgj_4aWDenPFYZSAXNFNcEHuVUpWDfNfxWQYWBrgWg9 a3Uo9jQ7uXznHgfQ0USlDA1pkNIaJMmK8EX6r1maR3Lbg8xXqGZady.8u4urwTjMxO3fHFlzbHWh M8u_AAwSexvvF.yE2DI8ykO.52qIMC82yWy00XDqzicZI7jl3HgY3StWpCF6H69OhSGFSMwPH0WD sghq_0.ulMKk3nuXVXihb78iVcQYhN2SwEEOuLxPoK5tKVI.2sMMfaL9xYn9RlCz7uCGHmT._OVO r1Rda8ZaCyG1mI_uLLIOCH28UFR7c6a2GModnFra6qvJHnBRQ.lU3bGmcFawufVEoydg5357VvVe cY_CMzgb6.7YgNnHC1jlECyFp4vb0AhJJVyPorX5t9Ex2sQjf0Q.tA_okCBXgxazrx92L9VDJzmD xLxTluDnEQePgEvk5tpZK_ym7db09R95RQW12UhAhHmxddOoNOHJCW.zrbHlpfX9zukKWFrbga.Y XJHZ9LT8ZeN23OpoDbSWxEq.EM0VxbdwDI8o54q3SKb5YP0y1EpWifGI7.wSTnpVLYwgE95jieqy lF5P7mjcekan4jmuTragFUoY_mjNZU..kg_bnXTm9BHNWx2VeYO688uJLSMuPZqhwFUCf0HvCgV2 emeo7RsgHVOf5K2oZzK_w6.wWArBYDiQiochuORr.gxF1wVDthZ6EdRJOi1Fup4ewBB783_1xC1s rmSDk9WKVyPPPrxfmgswtQShv.uw8w.jAIJ8WhtXyR1sHdavafcsiOWvR6UhD2T3MkttCYPOTL.0 Imvwk58somRRD4iliDRpZEvwYDgcB3G4hsPDljopQyWo2gVi.ezb8Jc4z1NdqIxdAuSqgLaZKpFN odScBeZvv5YqxoKgyeYVApERsOJ3rnOtfs.PoeqiACZErhvo2RM0TKc3Soeg.qMETbj8RSO9qqlN 1DBbT3x2pT.2CX4.Ajb0bXy4DDWhTpnac32BhmxlBvQElH6ZOH7jE6riXl2X6XkoNP2tMux81SKp 1FApCMd9w4ZKazJkWX9JBZv8pdg5wNqUJeIpOGg67Syik_Gg6ge4- cc: zsh-users@zsh.org In-reply-to: From: Oliver Kiddle References: To: "Aaron Jensen" cc: Daniel Tameling Subject: Re: xterm-direct and zsh MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <1741.1595405609.1@hydra> Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 10:13:29 +0200 Message-ID: <1742-1595405609.146071@5EJy.NK4K.Onqo> X-Mailer: WebService/1.1.16271 hermes_yahoo Apache-HttpAsyncClient/4.1.4 (Java/11.0.7) "Aaron Jensen" wrote: > I'm trying to use TERM=xterm-direct with zsh and finding that zle doesn't attempt to render things in 256 color, instead falling back to 8 color. With TERM=xterm-direct, terminfo is reporting 16777216 (2^24) colours rather than 256. So what's to say that a palette of specifically size 256 is supported? Are you able to point to some documentation for xterm-direct and what it is supposed to achieve? It appears to exist to explicitly advertise support for 24-bit colour in the terminal. Many terminals have support but in the absence of a way to detect it, we've had to leave things up to the user. A side-effect of this is that it is no longer advertising support for a 256 color palette. It'd be good to know if that palette can be relied upon when 2^24 are reported. Even if it can, I'm not sure whether that is wise or is missing the point. In the past various smaller sizes were also common (rxvt-unicode is still often built with 88). > I found this patch, but it does not appear to be applied: https://inbox.vuxu.org/zsh-workers/20190207203257.7sfyvpooegdjgice@Daniels-MacBook-Air.local/ > > Am I missing something or does zsh not properly support xterm-direct yet? I can't see where or why that patch never got merged. It's a patch that needs significant review time. There's a lack of documentation in ncurses so it would likely involve either guesswork or trying to make sense of discussion from ncurses development. Then understanding how things might react with other termcap/terminfo implementations and terminal definitions given that it is potentially adding assumptions to the code. The discussion with Sebastian somewhat buried the original point of the change. It does 4 separate things and change (b) is arguably pointless if the defacto standard works everywhere. I think at the time, I only had time to take a glance once that discussion was ended. I've added a note to my long TODO list and copied in the author of the patch. For the moment at least, I don't think any terminals are defaulting to xterm-direct and most systems I use have no terminal definition for it. So it requires people to be manually setting TERM to xterm-direct to trip over the issues. Oliver