According to today's LSARC meeting, I think it would be better to set this case to "waiting need spec" until there's any conclusion from an internal discussion with the libcurses guys.
Rick will give updates when necessary. Thanks --Irene Danek Duvall wrote: > On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 04:15:56PM +0800, Rick Ju wrote: > > >>>>> Has any thought been given to replacing Solaris curses with ncurses? I >>>>> >> believe that ncurses claims to be completely compatible with System V >> curses, and given that it's actually kept up-to-date, and is generally more >> featureful than Solaris curses, it would likely be a good move. >> >> Ncurses is only source compatible with curses. I checked the PSAC and >> didn't find who owns curses. Who could give a contact? If curses is >> committed interface could we still replace it? >> > > It's one of the unowned pieces, which is one reason that getting rid of it > is appealing. I'll see if I can dig up the right person or alias. > > >>>>> Are any of these names used by anyone, anywhere? Is there any value in >>>>> >> shipping them? You are, however, missing the most important one -- >> /usr/lib/libncurses.so.5 -- which is what everyone is going to expect. >> >> >>>>> It's not clear this one is useful if it's shipped in /usr/lib. >>>>> >> Because the conflict between ncurses and curses, we put a "g" prefix in >> front of the command names >> and install them in /usr/bin and then have a link to the command in >> /usr/gnu/bin without the "g" prefix. This is what we usually do when >> shipping name-conflicting GNU utilities. >> > > I was talking about the library, not the commands. We don't prefix > libraries whose names don't conflict with anything else. > > Danek >
