Re: Xterm, rxvt, mrxvt, etc....
On Sat, 5 May 2007, Charles Wilson wrote: The fact is, rxvt upstream is dead, dead, dead. It has shuffled off this mortal coil. Joined the choir invisible. It is an EX-terminal. The terminal is terminal. thanks for agreeing with me. It has no maintainer. Frankly, I prefer rxvt-unicode on X -- even in non-unicode mode -- because yes (does cygwin finally have unicode support? - no one's mentioned it on this list at all). http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-announce/2006-05/msg2.html Wait: an announcement of a release (and not even the most recent announcement) is your evidence that a package is unmaintained? Isn't that a bit backwards? google's not showing me a recent maintainer for the code. Hmm. http://www.google.com/search?q=site:cygwin.com+inurl:cygwin-announce+rxvt+20050409hl=enfilter=0 thanks - I didn't add in the announce, and found _only_ old references. Not much traffic. -- Thomas E. Dickey http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://x.cygwin.com/docs/ FAQ: http://x.cygwin.com/docs/faq/
Re: Xterm, rxvt, mrxvt, etc....
Thomas Dickey wrote: On Sat, 5 May 2007, Charles Wilson wrote: The fact is, rxvt upstream is dead, dead, dead. It has shuffled off this mortal coil. Joined the choir invisible. It is an EX-terminal. The terminal is terminal. thanks for agreeing with me. It has no maintainer. Not so fast, Thomas. I did not and do not agree with your previous posts: neither of your messages claimed that upstream rxvt has no maintainer. (If they did, then I would have agreed with that.) Your messages claimed that rxvt had no cygwin maintainer. That claim is false: I am the cygwin maintainer for rxvt. Don't try to retcon this thread. Frankly, I prefer rxvt-unicode on X -- even in non-unicode mode -- because yes (does cygwin finally have unicode support? - no one's mentioned it on this list at all). No, cygwin does not. Cygwin's rxvt-unicode port has limited unicode support because Thomas Wolff provided me with a patch (to rxvt-unicode) that shims unicode support by intercepting certain X calls. -- Chuck -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://x.cygwin.com/docs/ FAQ: http://x.cygwin.com/docs/faq/
Re: Xterm, rxvt, mrxvt, etc....
On Sun, 6 May 2007, Charles Wilson wrote: Thomas Dickey wrote: On Sat, 5 May 2007, Charles Wilson wrote: The fact is, rxvt upstream is dead, dead, dead. It has shuffled off this mortal coil. Joined the choir invisible. It is an EX-terminal. The terminal is terminal. thanks for agreeing with me. It has no maintainer. Not so fast, Thomas. I did not and do not agree with your previous posts: neither of your messages claimed that upstream rxvt has no maintainer. (If they did, then I would have agreed with that.) Your messages claimed that rxvt had no cygwin maintainer. That claim is false: I am the cygwin maintainer for rxvt. I don't much care for the role of cygwin maintainer in a discussion related to _support_, since you're deliberatly confusing the issue of putting the file on someone's disk in contrast to making it work. When I've seen - say - more than 10% of your work in the latter, you'll have something to argue about. You're not there. Don't try to retcon this thread. that remark reflects poorly on you. For the casual reader, google suggests that Charles Wilson called me a liar. Frankly, I prefer rxvt-unicode on X -- even in non-unicode mode -- because yes (does cygwin finally have unicode support? - no one's mentioned it on this list at all). No, cygwin does not. Cygwin's rxvt-unicode port has limited unicode support because Thomas Wolff provided me with a patch (to rxvt-unicode) that shims unicode support by intercepting certain X calls. You're apparently still confused: the terminal emulator can certainly implement something, but if the applications running in it can't (except as implied, for self-contained locale support), then it's of limited use. -- Thomas E. Dickey http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://x.cygwin.com/docs/ FAQ: http://x.cygwin.com/docs/faq/
Re: Xterm, rxvt, mrxvt, etc....
* Thomas Dickey (Sun, 6 May 2007 10:49:23 -0400 (EDT)) On Sun, 6 May 2007, Charles Wilson wrote: Thomas Dickey wrote: On Sat, 5 May 2007, Charles Wilson wrote: The fact is, rxvt upstream is dead, dead, dead. It has shuffled off this mortal coil. Joined the choir invisible. It is an EX-terminal. The terminal is terminal. thanks for agreeing with me. It has no maintainer. Not so fast, Thomas. I did not and do not agree with your previous posts: neither of your messages claimed that upstream rxvt has no maintainer. (If they did, then I would have agreed with that.) Your messages claimed that rxvt had no cygwin maintainer. That claim is false: I am the cygwin maintainer for rxvt. I don't much care for the role of cygwin maintainer in a discussion related to _support_ [...] You are confusing things. Quoting you: 'support is relative. There's apparently no X maintainer [...]'. If you don't 'care for the role of cygwin maintainer' then that's obviously nonsense as X is maintained upstream. Thorsten -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://x.cygwin.com/docs/ FAQ: http://x.cygwin.com/docs/faq/
Re: Xterm, rxvt, mrxvt, etc....
On Sun, 6 May 2007, Thorsten Kampe wrote: You are confusing things. Quoting you: 'support is relative. There's apparently no X maintainer [...]'. If you don't 'care for the role of cygwin maintainer' then that's obviously nonsense as X is maintained upstream. not at all: X upstream doesn't maintain the Cygwin X server. (nothing's preventing them from doing that, but it's not the same as actually doing it). Again, if there were an upstream _maintainer_ for rxvt (the point of this thread), they'd have done something useful with the win32 bits mentioned. There's certainly no cygwin maintainer for that, noting that the cited announcement was just a call for help rather than a notice of completed work. -- Thomas E. Dickey http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://x.cygwin.com/docs/ FAQ: http://x.cygwin.com/docs/faq/
Re: Xterm, rxvt, mrxvt, etc....
* Thomas Dickey (Sun, 6 May 2007 13:36:31 -0400 (EDT)) On Sun, 6 May 2007, Thorsten Kampe wrote: You are confusing things. Quoting you: 'support is relative. There's apparently no X maintainer [...]'. If you don't 'care for the role of cygwin maintainer' then that's obviously nonsense as X is maintained upstream. not at all: X upstream doesn't maintain the Cygwin X server. (nothing's preventing them from doing that, but it's not the same as actually doing it). Again, if there were an upstream _maintainer_ for rxvt (the point of this thread), they'd have done something useful with the win32 bits mentioned. Why would the upstream rxvt maintainer support (do something useful) with the Cygwin rxvt port when the X upstream maitainer doesn't?! -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://x.cygwin.com/docs/ FAQ: http://x.cygwin.com/docs/faq/
