On 07/09/05, Peter Van Eynde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Instead of disabling hemlock altogether, why not have it issue an
>> error if it can't find any TERMCAP? Besides, you can retrieve the
>> termcap information from current terminal with infocmp(1), so the
>> termcap data is just a (run-progr
On Tuesday 06 September 2005 09:42, you wrote:
> On 06/09/05, Peter Van Eynde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You use hemlock in a terminal? Wow.
>
> Instead of disabling hemlock altogether, why not have it issue an
> error if it can't find any TERMCAP? Besides, you can retrieve the
> termcap inform
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Rydstr|m <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[termcap-compat removal]
> No matter; I'm fairly certain I can live with fixing up stuff so I
> can still use it. I think it's not a great solution to remove a
> feature just because people don't want /etc/t
On 06/09/05, Peter Van Eynde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You use hemlock in a terminal? Wow.
Instead of disabling hemlock altogether, why not have it issue an
error if it can't find any TERMCAP? Besides, you can retrieve the
termcap information from current terminal with infocmp(1), so the
termcap
On Tuesday 06 September 2005 01:03, you wrote:
> > > I think it will be easiest to just remove terminal hemlock from the
> > > package, I have not seen anyone using it in the last few years. Any
> > > objections?
>
> I use it, but you've never seen me. ;)
You use hemlock in a terminal? Wow.
> No
On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 10:21:48PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Peter Van Eynde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sunday 04 September 2005 16:11, Roger Leigh wrote:
> >> Martin Rydstr|m <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> > On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 12:38:59PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> >> > It parses
Peter Van Eynde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sunday 04 September 2005 16:11, Roger Leigh wrote:
>> Martin Rydstr|m <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 12:38:59PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
>> > It parses /etc/termcap directly itself.
>> The /etc/termcap in termcap-compat
Martin Rydstr|m <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 12:38:59PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
>> Martin Rydstr|m <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 11:08:36AM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
>> >> Package: cmucl-source
>> >> Severity: normal
>> >>
>> >> cmucl-sour
On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 12:38:59PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Martin Rydstr|m <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 11:08:36AM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> >> Package: cmucl-source
> >> Severity: normal
> >>
> >> cmucl-source suggests termcap-compat. This is a libc5 compatibi
Martin Rydstr|m <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 11:08:36AM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
>> Package: cmucl-source
>> Severity: normal
>>
>> cmucl-source suggests termcap-compat. This is a libc5 compatibility
>> package which should not have been used by contemporary packages fo
On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 11:08:36AM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Package: cmucl-source
> Severity: normal
>
> cmucl-source suggests termcap-compat. This is a libc5 compatibility
> package which should not have been used by contemporary packages for
> at least 6 years.
>
> Please could you remove t
Package: cmucl-source
Severity: normal
cmucl-source suggests termcap-compat. This is a libc5 compatibility
package which should not have been used by contemporary packages for
at least 6 years.
Please could you remove the termcap-compat suggestion completely.
Thanks,
Roger
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
12 matches
Mail list logo
