On Tue, Oct 31, 2000 at 11:31:21AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2000 at 10:12:30AM +0100, Enrique Robledo Arnuncio wrote:
> > If we used a wrapper script instead of a link as
> >
> > /usr/bin/x-terminal-emulator
>
> But this is a gross kludge.
Not much grosser than providing
On Tue, Oct 31, 2000 at 10:12:30AM +0100, Enrique Robledo Arnuncio wrote:
> If we used a wrapper script instead of a link as
>
> /usr/bin/x-terminal-emulator
But this is a gross kludge.
--
G. Branden Robinson |
Debian GNU/Linux| // // // / /
[EMA
On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 08:26:28PM -0600, sam th wrote:
> > 4) Maybe, *maybe* we should require -ls (login shell) support, but even that
> > is pushing it, I think.
>
> To follow up on my earlier research:
> xterm, rxvt, kterm, [g,k,c]rxvt, gnome-terminal, Eterm
> all support 1, 2, 3, 4
>
> but w
On Tue, Oct 31, 2000 at 11:31:21AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2000 at 10:12:30AM +0100, Enrique Robledo Arnuncio wrote:
> > If we used a wrapper script instead of a link as
> >
> > /usr/bin/x-terminal-emulator
>
> But this is a gross kludge.
Not much grosser than providing
On Tue, Oct 31, 2000 at 10:12:30AM +0100, Enrique Robledo Arnuncio wrote:
> If we used a wrapper script instead of a link as
>
> /usr/bin/x-terminal-emulator
But this is a gross kludge.
--
G. Branden Robinson |
Debian GNU/Linux| // // // / /
[EM
On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 08:26:28PM -0600, sam th wrote:
> > 4) Maybe, *maybe* we should require -ls (login shell) support, but even that
> > is pushing it, I think.
>
> To follow up on my earlier research:
> xterm, rxvt, kterm, [g,k,c]rxvt, gnome-terminal, Eterm
> all support 1, 2, 3, 4
>
> but
On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 07:17:21PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 10:16:01PM +0100, Falk Hueffner wrote:
> > I'd like to add a menu entry for a command that needs a terminal
> > emulator. Can I rely on x-terminal-emulator understanding -e? How
> > about -T? Is this codifie
On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 07:17:21PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 10:16:01PM +0100, Falk Hueffner wrote:
> > I'd like to add a menu entry for a command that needs a terminal
> > emulator. Can I rely on x-terminal-emulator understanding -e? How
> > about -T? Is this codifi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, Chris Gray wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 07:58:17PM -0600, sam th wrote:
> > gnome-terminal supports -e and --title or -t, but not -T.
>
> This changed in the most recent woody gnome-terminal to -T but not -t.
>
Well, I'm
On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 08:26:28PM -0600, sam th wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> > I think requiring a *small* compatibility subset is the way to go. There's
> > not all that many things a terminal emulator needs to be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, Chris Gray wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 07:58:17PM -0600, sam th wrote:
> > gnome-terminal supports -e and --title or -t, but not -T.
>
> This changed in the most recent woody gnome-terminal to -T but not -t.
>
Well, I'm
On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 07:58:17PM -0600, sam th wrote:
> gnome-terminal supports -e and --title or -t, but not -T.
This changed in the most recent woody gnome-terminal to -T but not -t.
Cheers,
Chris
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I think requiring a *small* compatibility subset is the way to go. There's
> not all that many things a terminal emulator needs to be able to
> configurably from the command line to satisfy the requireme
On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 07:58:17PM -0600, sam th wrote:
> eterm supports both -e and -T.
>
> xterm ditto
>
> kterm ditto
>
> cxterm.common ditto
>
> the members of rxvt-ml
> krxvt
> grxvt
> crxvt
> crxvt-big5
> crxvt-gb
> all support both -e and -T
>
> xvt support
On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 05:08:32PM -0800, Bradley Bell wrote:
> isn't xterm the 'de facto' standard? it would seem to me that any options
> xterm understands ought to be supported by x-terminal-emulator. If
> a certain terminal emulater is not xterm compatible, it would be trivial to
> provide an
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, Marc Martinez wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 07:17:21PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Can someone help me establish whether the existing X terminal emulators in
> > Debian do in fact support all those options? If so, then
On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 05:08:32PM -0800, Bradley Bell wrote:
> isn't xterm the 'de facto' standard? it would seem to me that any options
> xterm understands ought to be supported by x-terminal-emulator. If
> a certain terminal emulater is not xterm compatible, it would be trivial to
> provide an
isn't xterm the 'de facto' standard? it would seem to me that any options
xterm understands ought to be supported by x-terminal-emulator. If
a certain terminal emulater is not xterm compatible, it would be trivial to
provide an 'xterm compatibility wrapper', and have x-terminal-emulator point
to
On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 08:26:28PM -0600, sam th wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> > I think requiring a *small* compatibility subset is the way to go. There's
> > not all that many things a terminal emulator needs to b
On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 07:17:21PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Can someone help me establish whether the existing X terminal emulators in
> Debian do in fact support all those options? If so, then it should be
> straightforward to make this requirement part of policy.
>
> To try to answer yo
On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 07:58:17PM -0600, sam th wrote:
> gnome-terminal supports -e and --title or -t, but not -T.
This changed in the most recent woody gnome-terminal to -T but not -t.
Cheers,
Chris
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? C
On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 10:16:01PM +0100, Falk Hueffner wrote:
> I'd like to add a menu entry for a command that needs a terminal
> emulator. Can I rely on x-terminal-emulator understanding -e? How
> about -T? Is this codified somewhere?
Your question is wonderfully on-charter for the debian-x lis
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I think requiring a *small* compatibility subset is the way to go. There's
> not all that many things a terminal emulator needs to be able to
> configurably from the command line to satisfy the requirem
On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 07:58:17PM -0600, sam th wrote:
> eterm supports both -e and -T.
>
> xterm ditto
>
> kterm ditto
>
> cxterm.common ditto
>
> the members of rxvt-ml
> krxvt
> grxvt
> crxvt
> crxvt-big5
> crxvt-gb
> all support both -e and -T
>
> xvt suppor
On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 05:08:32PM -0800, Bradley Bell wrote:
> isn't xterm the 'de facto' standard? it would seem to me that any options
> xterm understands ought to be supported by x-terminal-emulator. If
> a certain terminal emulater is not xterm compatible, it would be trivial to
> provide a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, Marc Martinez wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 07:17:21PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Can someone help me establish whether the existing X terminal emulators in
> > Debian do in fact support all those options? If so, then
On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 05:08:32PM -0800, Bradley Bell wrote:
> isn't xterm the 'de facto' standard? it would seem to me that any options
> xterm understands ought to be supported by x-terminal-emulator. If
> a certain terminal emulater is not xterm compatible, it would be trivial to
> provide a
isn't xterm the 'de facto' standard? it would seem to me that any options
xterm understands ought to be supported by x-terminal-emulator. If
a certain terminal emulater is not xterm compatible, it would be trivial to
provide an 'xterm compatibility wrapper', and have x-terminal-emulator point
to
On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 07:17:21PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Can someone help me establish whether the existing X terminal emulators in
> Debian do in fact support all those options? If so, then it should be
> straightforward to make this requirement part of policy.
>
> To try to answer y
On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 10:16:01PM +0100, Falk Hueffner wrote:
> I'd like to add a menu entry for a command that needs a terminal
> emulator. Can I rely on x-terminal-emulator understanding -e? How
> about -T? Is this codified somewhere?
Your question is wonderfully on-charter for the debian-x li
30 matches
Mail list logo
