Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 10:27:44 +0200 From: Corinna Vinschen To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Updated: bash-2.05b-13 Message-ID: <20030904082744.GA27659@cygbert.vinschen.de> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <20030903144214 DOT 6685F32A822 AT redhat DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 01:49:50PM -0400, Rolf Campbell wrote: > Thanks for fixing this problem. I still notice one other problem (this > has not been recently introduced). > > RXVT: > If the prompt string is longer than the width, then bash will not wrap > it correctly. It seems to introduce EOL at (w+8) and 2w (where w is the > real terminal width). I've tested this at real term widths of 30, 40, > and 80 (EOLs are introduced at (38, 60), (48, 80) and (88, 160) repectively. > > WinNT console: > The EOLs are in different positions, but they are still there. They are > at (w+19) and (2w-2). Is that actually a Cygwin problem? If not, perhaps you should send this to the bash bugs list bug-bash AT gnu DOT org. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developer mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat, Inc. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/