On Sunday 04 September 2005 02:59 am, Omniflux wrote:
> Option 'a' is certainly the easiest, but how do I choose which terminals
> to support? How do I test them?
Having a static table (for all terminals) is clearly nonsense for tparm.c,
since the purpose of this file is to interpret a terminfo f
On Sunday 04 September 2005 01:12 am, Marco Gerards wrote:
> It would be nice if we could use terminfo for the open firmware
> console, which is an ANSI console basically.
Isn't it vt100-compatible? vt100 is also based on ANSI.
Okuji
___
Grub-devel ma
Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
> For now, terminfo.c has code of interpreting terminfo, but supports only
> vt100. Do you intend to fix this?
Yes, but I do not know how I should do this. As the comment in the file
says...
/* TODO
* Lookup user specified terminfo type (escape code table). If foun
"Yoshinori K. Okuji" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wednesday 10 August 2005 02:41, Omniflux wrote:
>> It's been a few months, but here are some updated patches.
>
> I've checked in your patch with some modification right now. I changed these
> below:
[...]
Great! :-)
> vt100. Do you intend
On Wednesday 10 August 2005 02:41, Omniflux wrote:
> It's been a few months, but here are some updated patches.
I've checked in your patch with some modification right now. I changed these
below:
- I removed EXPORT_FUNC from terminfo.h. EXPORT_FUNC is required only if you
want to export symbols
On Sunday 14 August 2005 15:03, Marco Gerards wrote:
> There are also people using 286 computers, etc. My opinion is that we
> should focus on the most important things first. That is vt100/ansi
> support first. If someone really wants dumb terminal support he can
> explain why and he can implem
Omniflux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi,
> Why anyone would now be using such a terminal I do not know, but if we
> do not mention the proper way to use such a terminal, or not to use
> such a terminal at all, I'm sure someone will try it.
There are also people using 286 computers, etc. My opin
Gee...how long has it been since I threw out the old TTYs and LA120s
I used to use as consoles!!! But I know in the realm I work
(networking gear and telecom server), serial consoles will continue to
be there. Even the latest cPCI blade servers all have a serial port
for consoles, if for nothing
Marco Gerards wrote:
BTW, do you have any suggestion about the so-called "dumb terminal"?
The only thing I can think of is to disable the menu and replace clear
screen with a newline, which is what Legacy does IIRC.
Why can't we use a menu? Is it really that slow to update the menu
over a s
On Friday 12 August 2005 18:01, Marco Gerards wrote:
> Why can't we use a menu? Is it really that slow to update the menu
> over a serial console?
In a dumb terminal, the problem is that there is no way to go back to a
previous line.
Honestly, I do not want to support dumb terminals. They are r
Omniflux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Omniflux,
> It's been a few months, but here are some updated patches.
>
> The terminfo patch probably needs to be applied first.
Thanks for your new patch! :)
>> BTW, do you have any suggestion about the so-called "dumb terminal"?
>> Because supporting
>The only thing I can think of is to disable the menu and replace clear
>screen with a newline, which is what Legacy does IIRC.
>
>
>
But GRUB Legacy has also a dumb menu support even if it's horrible.
Perhaps we must do it like LILO does? Or should we do it more universally?
I propose to make m
Sorry, I forgot to send a reply.
On Monday 21 February 2005 13:38, Omniflux wrote:
> Here is a patch to add serial support to x86.
Great.
> If this is headed in the right direction, and likely to be accepted
> for merging with a little more work, I'll keep working on it.
Here is a patch to add serial support to x86.
It is a porting of grub-legacy's serial support, copies of grub-legacy's
tparms.{c,h} and terminfo.{c.h} and modifications based on grub2's
term/i386/pc/vga.c, disk/loopback.c (to add a grub command), and
util/console.c
It still needs a lot of work
14 matches
Mail list logo
