Re: xterm and clipboard
Look at man xterm -- for example, by this way: xterm -xrm '*VT100*translations: #override \n Shift Ctrl KeyC: select-end(CLIPBOARD, CUT_BUFFER0) \n Shift Ctrl KeyV: insert-selection(PRIMARY, CUT_BUFFER0)' Shift Ctrl KeyC actually is not need -- mouse selection placed to clipboard atomatcally. Cutting by shiftCtrlX seems irrealizable -- we don't have direct access to terminal buffer and you need realize complex text editors logic for such things. Most simple way for realizing of such functionality -- emacs shell mode with customized keys binding. --Oleg On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 8:07 AM, ToddAndMargo toddandma...@zoho.com wrote: On 06/21/2014 01:28 PM, Tom H wrote: On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 8:30 PM, ToddAndMargo toddandma...@zoho.com wrote: Anyone know if there is a way to get copy shiftCtrlC, past shiftCtrlV, and cut shiftCtrlX keystrokes into an xterm? Define copy-selection(CLIPBOARD) and insert-selection(CLIPBOARD) in XTerm*VT100.translations in .Xresources. Hi Tom, Is there a way to put it into the command line that calls the xterm? Many thanks, -T
Clarity on current status of Scientific Linux build
I've been following the discussions on this list about the changes in RHEL's source availability and I'd like to confirm my understanding of the current situation. Someone on another mail list made this comment: RedHat have said that they'll not be releasing source RPMs any more, so the response by the Scientific Linux people has more or less been Either use CentOS or our very own re-packaged CentOS thingie. This is incorrect (in terms of both statements that it makes), isn't it. Here is my current understanding. Please feel free to correct or confirm:- 1) RH now makes SRPMs available only to customers (but SRPMs are nevertheless still available on those terms). 2) The RHEL source is publicly also available on git.centos.org. 3) But it is not *absolutely* crystal clear what on git.centos.org is pure unadulterated RHEL source and what is CentOS source. 4) The SL project is writing tools to automatically extract RHEL source from git.centos.org. 5) SL7 will therefore be based on RHEL7 and definitely not on CentOS. 6) Anything I've forgotten? Thanks to anyone who can help with this.
Re: Clarity on current status of Scientific Linux build
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Mark Rousell markrlon...@hotmail.co.uk wrote: I've been following the discussions on this list about the changes in RHEL's source availability and I'd like to confirm my understanding of the current situation. Someone on another mail list made this comment: RedHat have said that they'll not be releasing source RPMs any more, so the response by the Scientific Linux people has more or less been Either use CentOS or our very own re-packaged CentOS thingie. This is incorrect (in terms of both statements that it makes), isn't it. Here is my current understanding. Please feel free to correct or confirm:- 1) RH now makes SRPMs available only to customers (but SRPMs are nevertheless still available on those terms). 2) The RHEL source is publicly also available on git.centos.org. 3) But it is not *absolutely* crystal clear what on git.centos.org is pure unadulterated RHEL source and what is CentOS source. 4) The SL project is writing tools to automatically extract RHEL source from git.centos.org. 5) SL7 will therefore be based on RHEL7 and definitely not on CentOS. 6) Anything I've forgotten? Thanks to anyone who can help with this. Step 4 is not reliable, and may cause profound problems, without step 3. Without verifiable GPG signed tags, in fact, a malicious proxy could use any of the stolen SSL root certificates, sign a forged 'git.centos.org' SSL signature, and interprose their trojan software burdened git repository. Moving away from the public SRPM's is burdensome to rebuilders other than CentOS, at least without those steps.
