On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 08:41:54AM -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> ...changing the calculation for a field (which unibilium's developers
> said is "wrong") isn't a _format_ change, but in this case, it's filling
> in a detail which was overlooked.
Someone else's documentation or code being incorrect about the database
doesn't undo the format change, as per your own documentation:
--- a/doc/html/man/term.5.html
+++ b/doc/html/man/term.5.html
@@ -175,69 +175,72 @@
(3) count of extended string capabilities
- (4) size of the extended string table in bytes.
+ (4) count of the items in extended string table
- (5) last offset of the extended string table in bytes.
+ (5) size of the extended string table in bytes
> The documentation didn't match the
> use they made of the value, and on review, the calculation was inconsistent
> with the rest of the reader.
>
> If there's additional work needed, it's a bug report against unibilium.
I'm not disagreeing with that, but there _was_ a change in the format.
Unibilium isn't the only tool that parses the db and it may not be the
only one that was broken by this change. That's why I'm raising the
issue.
Cheers,
--
James
GPG Key: 4096R/91BF BF4D 6956 BD5D F7B7 2D23 DFE6 91AE 331B A3DB
