On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 6:46 AM, Pascal Stumpf wrote:
> xterm has not deleted support for utmp in favour of utmpx. It checks in
> ./configure.
What speaks against implementing it in a similar fashion in dtterm?
BTW: Is there a better reason than "It's evil because it comes from
SVR4" why utmpx h
On Tue, 3 May 2016 06:08:43 +0200, Martin Etteldorf wrote:
> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 7:10 PM, Pascal Stumpf wrote:
>
> > Objection. That would kill OpenBSD support.
>
> I don't see a problem there, unless you are trying to tell me that
> xterm doesn't work properly on OpenBSD either. xterm has b
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 7:10 PM, Pascal Stumpf wrote:
> Objection. That would kill OpenBSD support.
I don't see a problem there, unless you are trying to tell me that
xterm doesn't work properly on OpenBSD either. xterm has been
rewritten with utmpx support ages ago and I haven't heard a single
On Sun, 1 May 2016 13:15:33 +0200, Martin Etteldorf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 8:09 PM, Danilo Schöneberg
> wrote: > Moin, > > There is one
> system left I'm checking out the build for - Linux From > Scratch. I'm
> building it right now (the system. Not CDE yet). > > I have ten days
