Your message dated Sun, 26 Jun 2005 15:22:31 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#314655: ncurses-base: wacky display in Eterm
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 17 Jun 2005 17:30:23 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Jun 17 10:30:23 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from smtp.imars.net [64.62.144.114]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1DjKff-0008GC-00; Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:30:23 -0700
Received: from toroia.hyrule.dyndns.org (modemcable017.4-201-24.mc.videotron.ca
[24.201.4.17])
by smtp.imars.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j5HHTtr6076299
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:29:56 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Received: by toroia.hyrule.dyndns.org (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id 88252B880; Fri, 17 Jun 2005 13:29:52 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Frederic Briere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: ncurses-base: wacky display in Eterm
X-Mailer: reportbug 3.13
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 13:29:51 -0400
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Level:
Package: ncurses-base
Version: 5.4-6
Severity: normal
Since upgrading from 5.4-4, I'm having problems with the display of
programs using ncurses in Eterm. This is quite obvious in lynx, when
scrolling wiht Ins/Del; the output is reminescent of the broken VT100
terminals of yore. This also shows up occasionally in mutt as well.
Both seem to behave correctly in xterm.
And in case you're wondering:
[fbriere] toroia:~ $ tic -V
ncurses 5.4.20050604
(Whatever that means.)
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.11-2
Locale: LANG=en_CA, LC_CTYPE=en_CA (charmap=ISO-8859-1)
Versions of packages ncurses-base depends on:
ii libncurses5 5.4-6 Shared libraries for terminal hand
ncurses-base recommends no packages.
Versions of packages ncurses-base is related to:
ii reportbug 3.13 reports bugs in the Debian distrib
pn totem-gstreamer <none> (no description available)
-- no debconf information
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 314655-done) by bugs.debian.org; 26 Jun 2005 19:22:33 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Jun 26 12:22:33 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from nevyn.them.org [66.93.172.17] (Debian-exim)
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1Dmci9-0000mv-00; Sun, 26 Jun 2005 12:22:33 -0700
Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.51)
id 1Dmci8-0002aL-0L; Sun, 26 Jun 2005 15:22:32 -0400
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 15:22:31 -0400
From: Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: =?iso-8859-1?B?RnLDqWTDqXJpYyBCcmnDqHJl?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#314655: ncurses-base: wacky display in Eterm
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Level:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 03:18:35PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 02:29:32PM -0400, Frédéric Brière wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 02:17:19PM -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> > > Perhaps because $TERM is set to "xterm" rather than "Eterm".
> >
> > Guilty as charged. TERM=Eterm was a PITA when ssh'ing into old boxen
> > that didn't recognize it, so I got rid of it a long time ago.
> >
> > I confirm that TERM=Eterm makes everything dandy again. (Plus, these
> > old boxen appear to have been upgraded, so I can get rid of that xterm
> > kludge.)
> >
> > Given that Eterm aims to be xterm-compatible, does this mean this bug
> > report should be reassigned to it?
>
> Up to you: either it's a bug in eterm or in your terminal settings.
> The two really aren't compatible; "infocmp Eterm xterm" to see the
> differences.
For now, I'm going to close this; if you want Eterm to work with the
current xterm terminfo entry, please open a new bug against eterm.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
