Scott Rotondo wrote:
> Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>> Thommy M. Malmström wrote:
>>> Seems as if there was a change in default behaviour of the less
>>> command between b72 and b76. It now clears the screen at exit which
>>> I find most annoying. Or is it the GNOME terminal that has changed???
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
> Ursprungligt meddelande
>Från: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Till: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Ãmne: Ãmne: Re: [osol-discuss] less
>Datum: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 17:02:55 -0600
>
>>On 18/11/2007, Ghee Teo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Thommy M. Malmströ
>
>
>
> Ursprungligt meddelande
>Från: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Till: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Ãmne: Ãmne: Re: [osol-discuss] less
>Datum: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 22:58:22 +
>
>>Thommy M. Malmström wrote:
>>> Seems as if there was a change in default beha
Shawn Walker wrote:
> On 18/11/2007, "Thommy M. Malmström" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
Well, as I stated earlier, xterm was _not_ affected by this "bug" fix.
>>> That may have been stated earlier but that does not make it true;
>>> xte
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Well, as I stated earlier, xterm was _not_ affected by this "bug" fix.
>>
>
>
> That may have been stated earlier but that does not make it true;
> xterm *was* affected by this bug fix.
>
Not on my SXCE b76...
___
ope
Shawn Walker wrote:
> On 18/11/2007, "Thommy M. Malmström" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Shawn Walker wrote:
>>
>>> On 18/11/2007, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
The init and term strings have been traditionally in "is" and "rs".
The official term
Shawn Walker wrote:
> On 18/11/2007, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> The init and term strings have been traditionally in "is" and "rs".
>>
>> The official termcap database from Eric Raymond includes:
>>
>> smcup=\E7\E[?47h
>> rmcup=\E[2J\E[?47l\E8
>>
>> for xterm R6
>>
>> Let us
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Thommy M. Malmström wrote:
>> Seems as if there was a change in default behaviour of the less command
>> between b72 and b76. It now clears the screen at exit which I find most
>> annoying. Or is it the GNOME terminal that has changed???
>>
>> Anyway, why have the behavi
> Hi,
>
> > I can also verify that it now works as it has
> worked on many other
> > systems for a long time (i.e. GNU/Linux, *BSDs,
> etc.)
>
> As a long time FreeBSD user, I don't remember seeing
> this particular
> behavior on these systems. And speaking about the
> "new" behavior,
> I can re
>>> I can also verify that it now works as it has worked on many other
>>> systems for a long time (i.e. GNU/Linux, *BSDs, etc.)
>> As a long time FreeBSD user, I don't remember seeing this particular
>> behavior on these systems. And speaking about the "new" behavior,
>> I can revert to the pref
On 19/11/2007, Julien Gabel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > I can also verify that it now works as it has worked on many other
> > systems for a long time (i.e. GNU/Linux, *BSDs, etc.)
>
> As a long time FreeBSD user, I don't remember seeing this particular
> behavior on these systems. And
Hi,
> I can also verify that it now works as it has worked on many other
> systems for a long time (i.e. GNU/Linux, *BSDs, etc.)
As a long time FreeBSD user, I don't remember seeing this particular
behavior on these systems. And speaking about the "new" behavior,
I can revert to the preferred me
On 18/11/2007, Ghee Teo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thommy M. Malmström wrote:
> > Seems as if there was a change in default behaviour of the less command
> > between b72 and b76. It now clears the screen at exit which I find most
> > annoying. Or is it the GNOME terminal that has changed???
> >
Thommy M. Malmström wrote:
> Seems as if there was a change in default behaviour of the less command
> between b72 and b76. It now clears the screen at exit which I find most
> annoying. Or is it the GNOME terminal that has changed???
>
> Anyway, why have the behaviour changed???
Yes. A fix we
On 18/11/2007, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Just try out if you do not understand the problem.
> > >
> > >
> > > 1) MUCH more than intended is underlined
> >
> > Not that I can see. It appears to be working as I expect on my b76
"Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Just try out if you do not understand the problem.
> >
> >
> > 1) MUCH more than intended is underlined
>
> Not that I can see. It appears to be working as I expect on my b76
> system and when I ssh into a GNU/Linux box I have access to.
If Caspe
On 18/11/2007, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On 18/11/2007, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > "Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > You need to be more specific about what problem you are talking about,
"Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 18/11/2007, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > You need to be more specific about what problem you are talking about,
> > > because I don't see one in b76 or b74.
> >
> > If you do not kn
On 18/11/2007, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > You need to be more specific about what problem you are talking about,
> > because I don't see one in b76 or b74.
>
> If you do not know what I am talking about, I recommend you to repeat the
"Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You need to be more specific about what problem you are talking about,
> because I don't see one in b76 or b74.
If you do not know what I am talking about, I recommend you to repeat the
description I send before...
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (h
>You said that xterm was affected
yes, clearly if you change rmcup xterm will notice.
Casper
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
On 18/11/2007, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >
> > >Well, as I stated earlier, xterm was _not_ affected by this "bug" fix.
> >
> >
> > That may have been stated earlier but that does not make it true;
> > xterm *was* affected by this bug fix.
>
> I asume
On 18/11/2007, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >
> > >I asume that this "bug fix" now introduced the same kind of annoinganf
> > >buggy behavior with less that is known for a long time between Linux =
> > >and Solaris.
> >
> > Why on earth would you assume
On 18/11/2007, "Thommy M. Malmström" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> Well, as I stated earlier, xterm was _not_ affected by this "bug" fix.
> >>
> >
> >
> > That may have been stated earlier but that does not make it true;
> > xterm *was* affected by this bug fix.
> >
>
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >I asume that this "bug fix" now introduced the same kind of annoinganf
> >buggy behavior with less that is known for a long time between Linux =
> >and Solaris.
>
> Why on earth would you assume that and not just read the fix which just
> rmcup and smcup?
You said th
>I asume that this "bug fix" now introduced the same kind of annoinganf
>buggy behavior with less that is known for a long time between Linux =
>and Solaris.
Why on earth would you assume that and not just read the fix which just
rmcup and smcup?
Casper
_
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Well, as I stated earlier, xterm was _not_ affected by this "bug" fix.
>
>
> That may have been stated earlier but that does not make it true;
> xterm *was* affected by this bug fix.
I asume that this "bug fix" now introduced the same kind of annoinganf
buggy behavio
>Anyway, I expect an editor to run the edit session in the alternate>
>screen and to switch back to the normal screen when ready.
>
>I expect a pager to display the file content in the normal screen and=
> to leave the content after the pager ends. Tis is how "more" works since ages
>and this is h
>Well, as I stated earlier, xterm was _not_ affected by this "bug" fix.
That may have been stated earlier but that does not make it true;
xterm *was* affected by this bug fix.
Casper
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolari
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> >I would expect you to be a die-hard xterm user instead, in which case
> >you could just use the titleInhibit xresource property to get back the
> >behaviour you want.
>
>
> titeInhibit, not titleIhibit (it's derived from ti-te Inhibit; were
> ti and te are the termc
On 18/11/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> >I would expect you to be a die-hard xterm user instead, in which case
> >you could just use the titleInhibit xresource property to get back the
> >behaviour you want.
>
>
> titeInhibit, not titleIhibit (it's derived from ti-te Inhib
>I would expect you to be a die-hard xterm user instead, in which case
>you could just use the titleInhibit xresource property to get back the
>behaviour you want.
titeInhibit, not titleIhibit (it's derived from ti-te Inhibit; were
ti and te are the termcap settings for smcup and rmcup.
Casper
On 18/11/2007, "Thommy M. Malmström" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Shawn Walker wrote:
> > On 18/11/2007, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> The init and term strings have been traditionally in "is" and "rs".
> >>
> >> The official termcap database from Eric Raymond includes:
> >>
>
On 18/11/2007, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The init and term strings have been traditionally in "is" and "rs".
>
> The official termcap database from Eric Raymond includes:
>
> smcup=\E7\E[?47h
> rmcup=\E[2J\E[?47l\E8
>
> for xterm R6
>
> Let us disassemble:
>
> 'sc' -> '\E7'
On 18/11/2007, Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 18/11/2007, Thommy M. Malmström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 18/11/2007, Thommy M. Malmström
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > Thommy M. Malmström wrote:
> > > > > > Seems as if there was a change in default
> > > behaviour
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >If absolute cursor positioning did work before, it is obvious that
> >nothing was missing.
>
> Considering that both less and vi left arbitrary trash on the screen,
> it can be argued that they were missing.
>
>
> >Whether to clear the screen or not is a personal decisi
On 18/11/2007, Thommy M. Malmström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 18/11/2007, Thommy M. Malmström
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Thommy M. Malmström wrote:
> > > > > Seems as if there was a change in default
> > behaviour
> > > > of the less command between b72 and b76. It now
> > > > cl
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It fixed something which was broken since Solaris 2.0; it now works again
> as it did in SunOS 4.x and before.
>
> It's a religious issue and I think it now works again as it did in
> other OSes since a long time.
The problem is that these databases are wrong in many ca
>What is expected?
>Why do you believe they where missing?
If a terminal emulator needs special initialization to allow for
cursor addressing, then rmcup and smcup must be provided.
>If absolute cursor positioning did work before, it is obvious that
>nothing was missing.
Considering that both
"Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Why do you assume this?
> >
> > Maybe you do not know how terminfo/termcap works.
>
> I know enough to still ask "why do you think the fix is incorrect?"
I still need to doubt
> > Let me add the output of my "cap" program that disaccembles term
>On 18/11/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It fixed something which was broken since Solaris 2.0; it now works again
>> as it did in SunOS 4.x and before.
>>
>> It's a religious issue and I think it now works again as it did in
>> other OSes since a long time.
>
>Indeed; it ha
> On 18/11/2007, Thommy M. Malmström
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Thommy M. Malmström wrote:
> > > > Seems as if there was a change in default
> behaviour
> > > of the less command between b72 and b76. It now
> > > clears the screen at exit which I find most
> annoying.
> > > Or is it the GNO
On 18/11/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It fixed something which was broken since Solaris 2.0; it now works again
> as it did in SunOS 4.x and before.
>
> It's a religious issue and I think it now works again as it did in
> other OSes since a long time.
Indeed; it has worked
It fixed something which was broken since Solaris 2.0; it now works again
as it did in SunOS 4.x and before.
It's a religious issue and I think it now works again as it did in
other OSes since a long time.
But it's largely a religious issue, as our internal mailing list
discussions on this sub
On 18/11/2007, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On 18/11/2007, Thommy M. Malmström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Thommy M. Malmström wrote:
> > > > > Seems as if there was a change in default behaviour
> > > > of the less command betw
"Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 18/11/2007, Thommy M. Malmström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Thommy M. Malmström wrote:
> > > > Seems as if there was a change in default behaviour
> > > of the less command between b72 and b76. It now
> > > clears the screen at exit which I find
On 18/11/2007, Thommy M. Malmström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Thommy M. Malmström wrote:
> > > Seems as if there was a change in default behaviour
> > of the less command between b72 and b76. It now
> > clears the screen at exit which I find most annoying.
> > Or is it the GNOME terminal that h
> Thommy M. Malmström wrote:
> > Seems as if there was a change in default behaviour
> of the less command between b72 and b76. It now
> clears the screen at exit which I find most annoying.
> Or is it the GNOME terminal that has changed???
> >
> > Anyway, why have the behaviour changed???
>
> Th
Thommy M. Malmström wrote:
> Seems as if there was a change in default behaviour of the less command
> between b72 and b76. It now clears the screen at exit which I find most
> annoying. Or is it the GNOME terminal that has changed???
>
> Anyway, why have the behaviour changed???
The terminfo d
> Thommy M. Malmström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Seems as if there was a change in default behaviour
> of the less command between b72 and b76. It now
> clears the screen at exit which I find most annoying.
> Or is it the GNOME terminal that has changed???
> >
> > Anyway, why have the beha
Thommy M. Malmström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Seems as if there was a change in default behaviour of the less command
> between b72 and b76. It now clears the screen at exit which I find most
> annoying. Or is it the GNOME terminal that has changed???
>
> Anyway, why have the behaviour change
Seems as if there was a change in default behaviour of the less command between
b72 and b76. It now clears the screen at exit which I find most annoying. Or is
it the GNOME terminal that has changed???
Anyway, why have the behaviour changed???
man less
[...]
-X or --no-init
Dis
52 matches
Mail list logo
