Keith Mitchell wrote: > > > ????? ???????????? wrote: >> On 10/16/09, Keith Mitchell <Keith.Mitchell at sun.com> wrote: >> >>> ????? ???????????? wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On 10/15/09, Keith Mitchell <Keith.Mitchell at sun.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> The Text Installer, being built on the curses module of Python, is >>>>> >>> expected >>> >>>>> to work on most terminal types 'by default,' with the expectation >>>>> that >>>>> >>> the >>> >>>>> underlying Python curses module, Ncurses library, and terminfo >>>>> data will >>>>> correctly handle the calls used. With that in mind, there are three >>>>> >>> terminal >>> >>>>> types that will get explicit testing: >>>>> >>>>> sun-color >>>>> vt100 >>>>> xterm* >>>>> >>>>> *xterm getting tested is a side effect of developing the Text >>>>> Installer >>>>> from a gnome desktop, and frequently running it from a >>>>> gnome-terminal. >>>>> >>>>> My question is, are there any other major terminals that deserve >>>>> >>> explicit >>> >>>>> testing? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> vt52, vt220, dtterm, tek? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Can you expand on why these terminals should be explicitly tested >>> in the >>> Text Installer context? Are they common (I haven't heard of them, >>> but my >>> knowledge of terminal types is limited) and do you anticipate a >>> reasonably >>> significant chance that their terminfo entries would be invalid in >>> some way? >>> >> >> vt52 and vt220 are commonly used in IT centers >> dtterm is the CDE dtterm emulator which will be used by people >> migrating from legacy Solaris 8, 9, 10 to Opensolaris >> tek is still widely used, enough that xterm still maintains a tek >> emulation mode >> >> The terminal I forgot is: >> linux >> >> "linux" is the TERM name for the Linux console. >> > > Thank you for the details. My follow-up question for you and others > is: Do we need to try to fit all of these into the test matrix for the > text installer? Would it be sufficient to manually verify that each of > them work initially (note that I'm not trying to advocate continued > manual testing)? Remember that, assuming Ncurses and the terminfo > entries are working properly, there really shouldn't be any issues. > > - Keith > _______________________________________________ > caiman-discuss mailing list > caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss It seems to me we are attempting to verify two things: The Text Installer and Python support for Ncurses. Perhaps it makes sense to separate them. Perhaps the Text Installer test should focus on testing the Text Installer, on a small number of terminals, and a separate test could be developed to streamline verification of Pythons support for Ncurses.
Just an idea. Joe
