Re: new dialog/libdialog testing

2011-02-09 Thread Thomas Dickey
On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 10:28:53AM -0500, David Boyd wrote: > Having some time to test 9.0-CURRENT with the new dialog command has > uncovered only one major omission (for us): prgbox/dialog_prgbox. > > This is used in most (if not all) of our installation/management scripts. > > Was prgbox omitt

Re: new dialog/libdialog testing

2011-02-09 Thread Nathan Whitehorn
On 02/09/11 10:15, Garrett Cooper wrote: On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 7:28 AM, David Boyd wrote: Having some time to test 9.0-CURRENT with the new dialog command has uncovered only one major omission (for us): prgbox/dialog_prgbox. This is used in most (if not all) of our installation/management scr

Re: new dialog/libdialog testing

2011-02-09 Thread Garrett Cooper
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 7:28 AM, David Boyd wrote: > Having some time to test 9.0-CURRENT with the new dialog command has > uncovered only one major omission (for us): prgbox/dialog_prgbox. > > This is used in most (if not all) of our installation/management scripts. > > Was prgbox omitted for any

new dialog/libdialog testing

2011-02-09 Thread David Boyd
Having some time to test 9.0-CURRENT with the new dialog command has uncovered only one major omission (for us): prgbox/dialog_prgbox. This is used in most (if not all) of our installation/management scripts. Was prgbox omitted for any particular reason? I realize that change is inevitable. Is