From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15591 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2004 17:30:23 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.247.90) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 25 Feb 2004 17:30:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 26816 invoked by alias); 25 Feb 2004 17:30:18 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 19464 Received: (qmail 26732 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2004 17:30:17 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO sunsite.dk) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 25 Feb 2004 17:30:17 -0000 X-MessageWall-Score: 0 (sunsite.dk) Received: from [62.189.58.19] by sunsite.dk (MessageWall 1.0.8) with SMTP; 25 Feb 2004 17:30:16 -0000 Received: from MAILSWEEPER01.csr.com (mailhost1.csr.com [62.189.183.235]) by lhuumrelay3.lnd.ops.eu.uu.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id i1PHUGv25200 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 17:30:16 GMT Received: from EXCHANGE02.csr.com (unverified [192.168.137.45]) by MAILSWEEPER01.csr.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.3.12) with ESMTP id for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 17:29:47 +0000 Received: from csr.com ([192.168.144.127]) by EXCHANGE02.csr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Wed, 25 Feb 2004 17:31:25 +0000 To: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk (Zsh hackers list) Subject: Re: PATCH: terminfo configuration redux In-reply-to: "Bart Schaefer"'s message of "Wed, 25 Feb 2004 17:21:56 GMT." <1040225172156.ZM24876@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 17:30:04 +0000 Message-ID: <22993.1077730204@csr.com> From: Peter Stephenson X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Feb 2004 17:31:25.0882 (UTC) FILETIME=[31C7E9A0:01C3FBC5] Bart Schaefer wrote: > On Feb 25, 11:24am, Peter Stephenson wrote: > } > } Here is another patch for terminfo configuration. It's very much > } like the original patch with a couple of things fixed. > > Works fine for me; changed the configuration not a whit. However, > I used "configure --with-curses-terminfo" ... should I also try > without that, or should it not matter? (Sorry for not just checking > the source for the answer to that, but I have to run right now.) It should matter less than it used to. It now respects the search order, but looks for curses anyway. The potential problem is that it will find symbols in both libraries and get into difficulties linking with both. I'm not sure how much we actually need to prefer the termcap library, anyway. On most systems now this is just a kludged-up subset of curses where it exists at all. However, I don't really know why the choice was necessary in the first place --- maybe it was just caution. -- Peter Stephenson Software Engineer CSR Ltd., Science Park, Milton Road, Cambridge, CB4 0WH, UK Tel: +44 (0)1223 692070 ********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.com **********************************************************************