Hi!
I've tried to get my terminal+tmux to display true colors today using
the latest terminfo as imported to NetBSD.
Either I misunderstand something or the tmux-direct entry is broken.
> infocmp tmux-direct
# Reconstructed from /usr/share/misc/terminfo.cdb
tmux-direct|tmux with direct-color indexing,
am, hs, km, mir, msgr, xenl,
colors#8, cols#80, it#8, lines#24, pairs#64,
...
It shouldn't be 'colors#8', but 16777216, which is the whole point of
the "-direct" entries.
xterm-direct looks good:
> infocmp xterm-direct
# Reconstructed from /usr/share/misc/terminfo.cdb
xterm-direct|xterm with direct-color indexing,
am, bce, km, mc5i, mir, msgr, npc, xenl,
colors#16777216, cols#80, it#8, lines#24, pairs#65536,
...
Reading terminfo.src I see:
tmux-direct|tmux with direct-color indexing,
use=kitty+setal, use=xterm+direct, use=tmux,
> infocmp kitty+setal
kitty+setal|set underline colors (nonstandard),
Compare that to terminfo.src:
kitty+setal|set underline colors (nonstandard),
setal=\E[58:2::%p1%{65536}%/%d:%p1%{256}%/%{255}%&%d:%p1
%{255}%&%dm,
Seems like NetBSD's infocmp (or terminfo) doesn't support setal,
sounds like a bug.
> infocmp xterm+direct
# Reconstructed from /usr/share/misc/terminfo.cdb
xterm+direct|xterm with direct-color indexing (building-block),
colors#16777216, pairs#65536,
op=\E[39;49m,
setab=\E[%?%p1%{8}%<%t4%p1%d%e48:2::%p1%{65536}%/%d:%p1%{256}%/%{255}%&%d:%p1%{255}%&%d%;m,
setaf=\E[%?%p1%{8}%<%t3%p1%d%e38:2::%p1%{65536}%/%d:%p1%{256}%/%{255}%&%d:%p1%{255}%&%d%;m,
Compared to terminfo file:
xterm+direct|xterm with direct-color indexing (building-block),
RGB,
colors#0x1000000, pairs#0x10000, CO#8,
initc@, op=\E[39;49m,
setab=\E[%?%p1%{8}%<%t4%p1%d%e48:2::%p1%{65536}%/%d:%p1
%{256}%/%{255}%&%d:%p1%{255}%&%d%;m,
setaf=\E[%?%p1%{8}%<%t3%p1%d%e38:2::%p1%{65536}%/%d:%p1
%{256}%/%{255}%&%d:%p1%{255}%&%d%;m,
setb@, setf@,
Again, a couple things seem to get lost (RGB, CO#8, initc@, setb@,
setf@) but the colors are there.
> infocmp tmux
# Reconstructed from /usr/share/misc/terminfo.cdb
tmux|tmux terminal multiplexer,
am, hs, km, mir, msgr, xenl,
colors#8, cols#80, it#8, lines#24, pairs#64,
...
so the colors get lost here because colors#8 overwrites the
xterm+direct entry.
>From terminfo:
tmux|tmux terminal multiplexer,
invis=\E[8m, rmso=\E[27m,
sgr=\E[0%?%p6%t;1%;%?%p2%t;4%;%?%p1%p3%|%t;7%;%?%p4%t;5%;%?
%p5%t;2%;%?%p7%t;8%;m%?%p9%t\016%e\017%;,
smso=\E[7m, E3=\E[3J, Smulx=\E[4:%p1%dm,
use=ecma+italics, use=ecma+strikeout, use=xterm+edit,
use=xterm+pcfkeys, use=xterm+sl, use=xterm+tmux,
use=screen, use=bracketed+paste, use=report+version,
use=xterm+focus,
I looked at the 'use' and some of them are empty (which makes me think
NetBSD's infocmp or terminfo are missing more features) and then I
found:
# Reconstructed from /usr/share/misc/terminfo.cdb
screen|VT 100/ANSI X3.64 virtual terminal,
am, km, mir, msgr, xenl,
colors#8, cols#80, it#8, lines#24, pairs#64,
...
So it looks to me like the 'colors' from the 'screen' entry via the
'tmux' entry overwrite the colors defined by 'xterm+direct'.
When I run infocmp from ncurses 6.4, I get a different output for
tmux-direct:
# /usr/pkg/bin/infocmp tmux-direct
# Reconstructed via infocmp from file:
/usr/pkg/share/terminfo/t/tmux-direct
tmux-direct|tmux with direct-color indexing,
am, hs, km, mir, msgr, xenl,
colors#0x7fff, cols#80, it#8, lines#24, pairs#0x7fff,
acsc=++\,\,--..00``aaffgghhiijjkkllmmnnooppqqrrssttuuvvwwxxyyzz{{||}}~~,
bel=^G, blink=\E[5m, bold=\E[1m, cbt=\E[Z, civis=\E[?25l,
clear=\E[H\E[J, cnorm=\E[34h\E[?25h, cr=\r,
csr=\E[%i%p1%d;%p2%dr, cub=\E[%p1%dD, cub1=^H,
cud=\E[%p1%dB, cud1=\n, cuf=\E[%p1%dC, cuf1=\E[C,
cup=\E[%i%p1%d;%p2%dH, cuu=\E[%p1%dA, cuu1=\EM,
cvvis=\E[34l, dch=\E[%p1%dP, dch1=\E[P, dim=\E[2m,
dl=\E[%p1%dM, dl1=\E[M, dsl=\E]0;\007, ed=\E[J, el=\E[K,
el1=\E[1K, enacs=\E(B\E)0, flash=\Eg, fsl=^G, home=\E[H,
hpa=\E[%i%p1%dG, ht=^I, hts=\EH, ich=\E[%p1%d@,
il=\E[%p1%dL, il1=\E[L, ind=\n, indn=\E[%p1%dS,
invis=\E[8m, is2=\E)0, kDC=\E[3;2~, kEND=\E[1;2F,
kHOM=\E[1;2H, kIC=\E[2;2~, kLFT=\E[1;2D, kNXT=\E[6;2~,
kPRV=\E[5;2~, kRIT=\E[1;2C, kbs=^?, kcbt=\E[Z, kcub1=\EOD,
kcud1=\EOB, kcuf1=\EOC, kcuu1=\EOA, kdch1=\E[3~,
kend=\E[4~, kf1=\EOP, kf10=\E[21~, kf11=\E[23~,
kf12=\E[24~, kf13=\E[1;2P, kf14=\E[1;2Q, kf15=\E[1;2R,
kf16=\E[1;2S, kf17=\E[15;2~, kf18=\E[17;2~,
kf19=\E[18;2~, kf2=\EOQ, kf20=\E[19;2~, kf21=\E[20;2~,
kf22=\E[21;2~, kf23=\E[23;2~, kf24=\E[24;2~,
kf25=\E[1;5P, kf26=\E[1;5Q, kf27=\E[1;5R, kf28=\E[1;5S,
kf29=\E[15;5~, kf3=\EOR, kf30=\E[17;5~, kf31=\E[18;5~,
kf32=\E[19;5~, kf33=\E[20;5~, kf34=\E[21;5~,
kf35=\E[23;5~, kf36=\E[24;5~, kf37=\E[1;6P, kf38=\E[1;6Q,
kf39=\E[1;6R, kf4=\EOS, kf40=\E[1;6S, kf41=\E[15;6~,
kf42=\E[17;6~, kf43=\E[18;6~, kf44=\E[19;6~,
kf45=\E[20;6~, kf46=\E[21;6~, kf47=\E[23;6~,
kf48=\E[24;6~, kf49=\E[1;3P, kf5=\E[15~, kf50=\E[1;3Q,
kf51=\E[1;3R, kf52=\E[1;3S, kf53=\E[15;3~, kf54=\E[17;3~,
kf55=\E[18;3~, kf56=\E[19;3~, kf57=\E[20;3~,
kf58=\E[21;3~, kf59=\E[23;3~, kf6=\E[17~, kf60=\E[24;3~,
kf61=\E[1;4P, kf62=\E[1;4Q, kf63=\E[1;4R, kf7=\E[18~,
kf8=\E[19~, kf9=\E[20~, khome=\E[1~, kich1=\E[2~,
kind=\E[1;2B, kmous=\E[M, knp=\E[6~, kpp=\E[5~,
kri=\E[1;2A, nel=\EE, op=\E[39;49m, rc=\E8, rev=\E[7m,
ri=\EM, rin=\E[%p1%dT, ritm=\E[23m, rmacs=^O,
rmcup=\E[?1049l, rmir=\E[4l, rmkx=\E[?1l\E>, rmso=\E[27m,
rmul=\E[24m, rs2=\Ec\E[?1000l\E[?25h, sc=\E7,
setab=\E[%?%p1%{8}%<%t4%p1%d%e48:2::%p1%{65536}%/%d:%p1%{256}%/%{255}%&%d:%p1%{255}%&%d%;m,
setaf=\E[%?%p1%{8}%<%t3%p1%d%e38:2::%p1%{65536}%/%d:%p1%{256}%/%{255}%&%d:%p1%{255}%&%d%;m,
sgr=\E[0%?%p6%t;1%;%?%p2%t;4%;%?%p1%p3%|%t;7%;%?%p4%t;5%;%?%p5%t;2%;%?%p7%t;8%;m%?%p9%t\016%e\017%;,
sgr0=\E[m\017, sitm=\E[3m, smacs=^N, smcup=\E[?1049h,
smir=\E[4h, smkx=\E[?1h\E=, smso=\E[7m, smul=\E[4m,
tbc=\E[3g, tsl=\E]0;, u6=\E[%i%d;%dR, u7=\E[6n,
u8=\E[?1;2c, u9=\E[c, vpa=\E[%i%p1%dd,
which does not offer 1677216 colors, but more than 8.
(xterm-direct analyzed this way also only reports
xterm-direct|xterm with direct-color indexing,
...
colors#0x7fff, cols#80, it#8, lines#24, pairs#0x7fff,
...
)
So this looks like ncurses terminfo handling when 'use'ing other
entries is different than what NetBSD's is doing.
Does this look correct? Then it'd be time for a bug report...
Thomas
