On Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 09:45:22PM +0200, Marius Gedminas wrote:
> > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1262377 Jun 21 11:29 /usr/bin/mutt*
> > -rwxr-sr-x 1 root mail 36607 Jun 21 11:29 /usr/bin/mutt_dotlock*
> > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 6668 Jun 21 11:29 /usr/bin/muttbug*
> >
> > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 418000 Jun 21 11:24 /usr/bin/mutt*
> > -rwxr-sr-x 1 root root 7588 Jun 21 11:24 /usr/bin/mutt_dotlock*
> > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 6668 Jun 21 11:23 /usr/bin/muttbug*
> >
> > Anyone know why there's such a discrepancy? I think the RPM might be
> > stripping the binaries but I don't know if that would make such a big
> > difference...
>
> I think it could. Try to strip your binaries and look at their sizes
> then. (That's only 3x difference, C++ programs may decrease in size ten
> times after stripping.)
Yup, tried that (see other message for the sizes). They're still
slightly different between the manual and RPM compiles.
> > System: Linux 2.2.15-4mdk [using slang 10400]
> >
> > I also still have a problem with colors, regardless of which binary I
> > use. My color config looks like:
> [...]
> > When I comment it all out, then I get mono but I can see what I'm
> > doing. Otherwise the colors are severely messed up. Any ideas about
> > this one? The one thing I like about mutt is the color support, but
> > it kinda needs to work too... =(
>
> This is Unix. Extreme flexibility and many possible points of failure.
> Your terminal program could be buggy. It could have different RGB
> values assigned to colour numbers. Its terminfo description may be
> wrong (e.g. earlier versions of Eterm specified setf=/setb= instead of
> setaf=/setab=). Your $TERM may not match your terminal program (all
> those xterm clones usually are different in this regard, and xterm
> itself has many versions.) This might be a bug in slang/ncurses (even
> the latest stable ncurses version (5.0) is buggy). This might be a bug
> in Mutt (unlikely). Several of the above may be true.
Yeah, but I'm using this in the console (no Eterm/xterm stuff), and
it worked with mutt 1.0.1. I'm assuming that it dynamically uses the
slang stuff, or is it statically included? I think that the 1.0.1
mutt was compiled with an older version of slang while the new mutt
was compiled with a newer slang. I haven't tried it with ncurses,
however, so I might try that out.
> I've had *lots* and *lots* of problems with Mutt and colours. All
> investigations and lots of time spent debugging them showed that the
> problems weren't Mutt's fault. I finally fixed my terminfo and settled
> on ncurses 5.0, since it distored my colours less than slang or other
> ncurses versions. YMMV.
>
> (I've been told that latest ncurses developement versions have my
> problem fixed. I still haven't tried them...)
Hmmm... I'll try it with ncurses and we'll see if that makes any
difference. I just found it wierd that with mutt 1.0.1 the color
worked awesome (also compiled with slang) yet with 1.2.2 it's really
whacked out. But we'll see if ncurses makes a difference.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED], OpenPGP key available on www.keyserver.net
Freezer Burn BBS: telnet://bbs.freezer-burn.org . ICQ: 54924721
Webmaster for the Linux Portal Site Freezer Burn: http://www.freezer-burn.org
Current Linux uptime: 2 days 5 hrs and 02 mins.
