Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID: <CBED705A7FD2D311865500508B10894107EB3FA6@chntex02.is.dyncorp.com>
From: "Tackett, Galen" <Galen DOT Tackett AT DynCorp DOT com>
To: "'Nicholas Wourms'" <nwourms AT yahoo DOT com>,
   "'cygwin AT cygwin DOT com'"
	 <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: RE: A proposed change to termcap??
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 08:27:26 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

Nicholas,

I'm confused.  (So what else is new?  :)

I originally did a binary-only installation of cygwin. The resulting file
/usr/local/share/terminfo/r/rxvt-cygwin-native already contains the stuff
that my patch would put into termcap.

Is it likely that this file in the terminfo package source would differ in
some way from the one in the binary distribution of the package? 

A. If not, a patch made from them would obviously be a no-op (unless it also
would somehow cause termcap to get rebuilt).

B. If such a difference IS likely, why would the file in the binary package
differ from the one in the source package? And wouldn't it be better to just
ask someone (Chris?) to build an up-to-date binary of the package?

How do you think things should proceed?

Thanks,

Galen

P.S. (see especially the last line)

You wrote--

> Based on this comment:
> Reconstructed via infocmp from file:
> /usr/local/share/terminfo/r/rxvt-cygwin-native

This comment is an artifact of infocmp's output, and is already present for
the last five terminal types in  my originally installed termcap file.
Apparently its creator combined a previously existing set of terminal
definitions, with five more taken from a terminfo database that had an
up-to-date copy of /usr/local/share/terminfo/r/rxvt-cygwin-native.

I wonder how the current termcap file actually came to be? 

Perhaps there are other changes in the terminfo database that have not made
their way into the termcap file?


-----Original Message-----
From: Nicholas Wourms [mailto:nwourms AT yahoo DOT com]
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 6:55 AM
To: Tackett, Galen
Subject: RE: A proposed change to termcap??


Galen,

The patch is right, but the file patched is wrong.  As a general rule
of thumb, if at all possible we prefer to patch the source package of
the package which distributes the problematic file.

It leads me to believe that the file is in the terminfo package. 
Thus you would need to generate a diff by downloading this source
package and using it.  Apply your changes to the source tree and then
move the sorce tree to a different name [i.e terminfo-nnnn.modified].
 Untar the source package once more and then execute the diff command
like:

diff -Naurp <original src tree dir> <modified source tree dir>
i.e. diff -urp terminfo-nnnn terminfo-nnnn.modified

That should produce a patch which Chris would accept into the
distribution.

The source package can be downloaded here:
http://mirrors.rcn.net/pub/sourceware/cygwin/release/terminfo/terminfo-5.2-3
-src.tar.bz2

Cheers,
Nicholas
--- "Tackett, Galen" <Galen DOT Tackett AT DynCorp DOT com> wrote:
> Took me a while to get back to this, but:
> 
> Does the attached file look like the right kind of patch file to
> send? I
> noticed that the command I used appears as the first line of the
> diff output
> file.
> 
> (Just the format, of course, not the details--unless you're a
> willing expert
> on termcap terminal types.)
> 

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/