X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com From: Andrew Schulman Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Updated: screen, now with 256-color support! Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 16:29:24 +0000 (UTC) Lines: 17 Message-ID: References: <416096c60908312242g39e38fe5s5dbe299e84f6afd8 AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: 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 > > TERM=xterm-256color screen -T screen-256color > > Instead of specifying -T screen-256color every time, one can just put > 'term screen-256color' into .screenrc. I'll update the docs to show this > when I make the release current. Is there any reason that I shouldn't put this command into the default /etc/screenrc file? Are there terminal types for which it would cause problems? I just tried this with a DOS terminal, which doesn't support 256 colors AFAIK. It didn't make any difference that I could tell. Maybe I'll put out another test release with that change, and see if anyone complains. A. -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple