On 02.09.2019 15:11, Valery Ushakov wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 12:32:51 +0300, Valery Ushakov wrote:
>
>> Why would we ever want to report this completely random and unrelated
>> fact?!
>>
>> There were years when curses in the tree was unchanged. In the mean
>> time we have churned through dozens of netbsd versions.
>>
>> Why are we trying to over-engineer this?
>
> So the original claim was that it's needed by qemu.
For the reference. I noted that I originally needed it, not that I still
need it in qemu. I have patched upstream qemu to stop using it.
https://github.com/qemu/qemu/commit/271f37abb510607ca7650e40951284692a67579a
Although there are qemu forks in the wild; some of them still need it
(at least hqemu is interesting to me).
> I've downloaded
> qemu-3.1.1, qemu-4.1.0, and qemu.git and I don't see it mentioned
> anywhere, grep -r curses_version qemu* returns nothing.
>
> I've searched github and I see manual pages to curses_version in
> various formats, binding for curses_version for various scripting
> languages. configure tests that seems to check the presense of
> curses_version to detect ncurses.
>
> NB: have we just broken all those configure scripts?
>
> I don't see this function actually being used for anything though I
> haven't clicked through all the 31K occurrences.
>
> I cannot really conceive how this function can be useful for anything
> other that printing that information as part of some banner. A
> program that makes some kind of decision about how to use curses by
> inspecting this value at runtime? I'd sooner belive in unicorns :)
>
> My preference would be to either revert this and pretend it never
> happened or to make it return a static string "All your base are
> belong to us" b/c we really don't have any meaningful versioning for
> our curses and pretending otherwise by returning completely unrelated
> netbsd version just makes us look stupid, IMO. (As Christoph noted,
> do we now have to bump netbsd version if we make a change in curses?
> :)
>
> I'm sorry I should have joined this bikeshed earlier, but as I said I
> didn't realize what was actually going to be committed. I'm sorry I
> let Roy to be mobbed into this.
>
> -uwe
>
I'm for a static string like "NetBSD Curses"/"NetBSD-Curses" or even
"NetBSD" (comparable to "SVR4" in SVR4 Curses"), but Roy insisted on a
numerical version.
netbsd-curses a downstream fork uses its own versioning model and we do
not need to bother with any numbers locally.
The current approach is a consensus in that matter.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
