On Wed, 24 Jun 1998, LeRoy D. Cressy wrote:
> Alexander E. Apke wrote:
> >
> >
> > I did not want this to be set in the terminfo entry, but rather
> > added as the default configuration to debian's xterm. My reasoning is
> > that since the termi
On Wed, 24 Jun 1998, Brian Mays wrote:
>
> This does not need to be done with at terminfo entry. Use the following X
> resources (in either $HOME/.Xresources or /etc/X11/Xresources for
> everybody):
>
> XTerm*background: black
> XTerm*foreground: gray90
>
> By the way, this also wi
Now that debian is going to be using a nonstandard terminfo entry
for xterms, can the default colors be setup like a normal linux console,
black background with white foreground.
I liked this when the xterm was setup this way a while back. I
believe the reason for switching back t
> Here are a few related pros and cons.
>
> <--- == BS, but we must decide on one or the other as the installation
> default.
>
> <--- == BS sounds right. IMHO this is just silly.
>
> <--- == DEL is different from DOS. This to is just silly
>
> <--- == DEL gives us an extra usable key on th
Why do we need to take out the offensive part of the package when
we already have an example of how to package offensive material. The
fortune and fortune-mod package asks during installation if the offensive
material should be removed.
Why can't we just follow the policy set forw
I have been running the 2.3b3 version from experimental. I have
had a few problem with it, assuming those problems were a result of it
being a beta version. I think the only reason 2.3b3 is in experimental
was because it was a beta version. Now that the final release is out, it
might be
I was just wondering why we havn't upgraded to the new upstream
version 2.3.0, which has been out since may 22. I would figure it whould
have quite a few fixes for some of the problems in 2.2.0.
Thanks
Alex
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FR
7 matches
Mail list logo
