On 2/2/20 12:52 PM, Jean-Marc Pigeon wrote:
Hello Bruce,
On Sun, 2020-02-02 at 10:50 -0600, Bruce Dubbs via blfs-dev wrote:
The latest version of xterm has this in the NEWS file:
* modify run-tic.sh to prefer development version of ncurses since
changes to terminfo file in patch #345 rely upon bug-fixes in
ncurses
I do not think that it is good form to create a 'stable' release
that
relies on a development library.
Testing, the 'make install-ti' command just runs run-tic.sh and that
checks for a development version of ncurses and fails.
I can hack run-tic.sh to make it use the current ncurses, but that
will
continue the problem from xterm-345 and later.
I've looked at updating ncurses, but the patches methodology of
ncurses
seems awkward. There seems to be a large number (currently 103) of
weekly patch.gz files that appear to be designed to be applied
sequentially. Some of the patches are quite large and uncompressed
total
to about 21 MB.
I only use xterm for testing Xorg and I do not know if many others
use
it on a regular basis.
I'm inclined to just leaving xterm at the current 352 version until
a
stable ncurses-6.2 is released.
Opinions?
Agreed 100% with you.
Development != stable.
Distribution/aggregation should rely on "pure" upstream tar file.
Patching is (an unwelcome but sometime needed) packager privilege.
I contacted the upstream developer and he says a new ncurses version
will be available "soon" for some value of "soon" due to testing issues.
He did give me a url:
https://invisible-mirror.net/archives/ncurses/6.1/ncurses-6.1-20190609-patch.sh.bz2
that we could apply to LFS Chapter 6 ncurses. It is a script that can
be applied as a patch. It expands to 5.4 MB which is larger than the
base tarball. I did test it and it works.
I still prefer the wait option, but this is something to consider.
-- Bruce
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
