On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 03:32:36PM +0200, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>
> I'm for a static string like "NetBSD Curses"/"NetBSD-Curses" or even
> "NetBSD" (comparable to "SVR4" in SVR4 Curses"), but Roy insisted on a
> numerical version.
>
I haven't read down thread yet but Roy has just implemented s
On 02.09.2019 15:11, Valery Ushakov wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 12:32:51 +0300, Valery Ushakov wrote:
>
>> Why would we ever want to report this completely random and unrelated
>> fact?!
>>
>> There were years when curses in the tree was unchanged. In the mean
>> time we have churned through
On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 12:32:51 +0300, Valery Ushakov wrote:
> Why would we ever want to report this completely random and unrelated
> fact?!
>
> There were years when curses in the tree was unchanged. In the mean
> time we have churned through dozens of netbsd versions.
>
> Why are we trying
[copying here my reply from source-changes-d]
On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 18:22:37 +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
> On 30/08/2019 18:09, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
> > On 30.08.2019 18:55, Roy Marples wrote:
> > > return "NetBSD-Curses " CURSES_VERSION
> >
> > I propose to go for:
> >
> > return "NetBSD-"
On 30.08.2019 19:22, Roy Marples wrote:
> On 30/08/2019 18:09, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>> On 30.08.2019 18:55, Roy Marples wrote:
>>> return "NetBSD-Curses " CURSES_VERSION
>>
>>
>> I propose to go for:
>>
>> return "NetBSD-" CURSES_VERSION " Curses";
>>
>> With removed __DATE__ that is not MKREPRO
On 30/08/2019 18:09, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
On 30.08.2019 18:55, Roy Marples wrote:
return "NetBSD-Curses " CURSES_VERSION
I propose to go for:
return "NetBSD-" CURSES_VERSION " Curses";
With removed __DATE__ that is not MKREPRO friendly.
The rest looks fine.
I dislike having the versi
On 30.08.2019 18:55, Roy Marples wrote:
> return "NetBSD-Curses " CURSES_VERSION
I propose to go for:
return "NetBSD-" CURSES_VERSION " Curses";
With removed __DATE__ that is not MKREPRO friendly.
The rest looks fine.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 29/08/2019 14:27, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
On 29.08.2019 15:23, Roy Marples wrote:
On 29/08/2019 14:19, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
In my opinion artificial versioning (1.0.0) of native code adds no
interesting information and adds burden on us for superfluous versioning
model, orthogonal to __Ne
On 30/08/2019 17:45, Roy Marples wrote:
On 29/08/2019 14:27, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
On 29.08.2019 15:23, Roy Marples wrote:
On 29/08/2019 14:19, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
In my opinion artificial versioning (1.0.0) of native code adds no
interesting information and adds burden on us for superfl
On 29/08/2019 14:27, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
On 29.08.2019 15:23, Roy Marples wrote:
On 29/08/2019 14:19, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
In my opinion artificial versioning (1.0.0) of native code adds no
interesting information and adds burden on us for superfluous versioning
model, orthogonal to __Ne
On 29.08.2019 15:23, Roy Marples wrote:
> On 29/08/2019 14:19, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>> In my opinion artificial versioning (1.0.0) of native code adds no
>> interesting information and adds burden on us for superfluous versioning
>> model, orthogonal to __NetBSD_Version__.
>
>> Adding extra ver
On 29/08/2019 14:19, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
In my opinion artificial versioning (1.0.0) of native code adds no
interesting information and adds burden on us for superfluous versioning
model, orthogonal to __NetBSD_Version__.
Adding extra versioning would make sense if we could maintain curses
On 29.08.2019 13:55, Roy Marples wrote:
> On 29/08/2019 03:45, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 10:42:13PM -0400, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 01:54:54AM +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
>>>
>>> Where 8.2 is taken from the .so version?
>>>
>>>
On 29/08/2019 03:45, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 10:42:13PM -0400, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 01:54:54AM +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
Where 8.2 is taken from the .so version?
Roy
I think that it would be confused with NetBSD release and it could b
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 10:42:13PM -0400, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 01:54:54AM +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Where 8.2 is taken from the .so version?
> > > > >
> > > > > Roy
> > >
> > > I think that it would be confused with NetBSD release and it could
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 01:54:54AM +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Where 8.2 is taken from the .so version?
> > > >
> > > > Roy
> >
> > I think that it would be confused with NetBSD release and it could be
> > meaningless/confusing for downstream users that just pick the code as is
> >
On 28.08.2019 21:58, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 08:59:32PM +0200, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>> On 28.08.2019 14:50, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 11:00:55AM +0930, Brett Lymn wrote:
I agree with Roy here, if we add the call we should spit out the
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 08:59:32PM +0200, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
> On 28.08.2019 14:50, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 11:00:55AM +0930, Brett Lymn wrote:
> >> I agree with Roy here, if we add the call we should spit out the
> >> version of the curses lib.
> >
> > The ELF v
On 28.08.2019 14:50, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 11:00:55AM +0930, Brett Lymn wrote:
>> I agree with Roy here, if we add the call we should spit out the
>> version of the curses lib.
>
> The ELF version has no meaning though. If anything, keep a date of the
> last visible i
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 11:00:55AM +0930, Brett Lymn wrote:
> I agree with Roy here, if we add the call we should spit out the
> version of the curses lib.
The ELF version has no meaning though. If anything, keep a date of the
last visible interface change.
Joerg
ed, 28 Aug 2019 01:54:54 +0100
Subject:Re: Add curses_version() in curses(3)
On 27/08/2019 21:14, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
> On 27.08.2019 19:29, Roy Marples wrote:
>> Using Blymns correct email :)
>>
>> On 27/08/2019 18:28, Roy Marples wrote:
>>> On 27/08/2019 17:24, Ka
On 27/08/2019 21:14, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
On 27.08.2019 19:29, Roy Marples wrote:
Using Blymns correct email :)
On 27/08/2019 18:28, Roy Marples wrote:
On 27/08/2019 17:24, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
Last year, I wrote this patch to add curses_version() for curses(3).
http://netbsd.org/~kami
On 27.08.2019 19:29, Roy Marples wrote:
> Using Blymns correct email :)
>
> On 27/08/2019 18:28, Roy Marples wrote:
>> On 27/08/2019 17:24, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>>> Last year, I wrote this patch to add curses_version() for curses(3).
>>>
>>> http://netbsd.org/~kamil/patch-00073-curses-version.t
Using Blymns correct email :)
On 27/08/2019 18:28, Roy Marples wrote:
On 27/08/2019 17:24, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
Last year, I wrote this patch to add curses_version() for curses(3).
http://netbsd.org/~kamil/patch-00073-curses-version.txt
The only purpose of this function is to get better co
On 27/08/2019 17:24, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
Last year, I wrote this patch to add curses_version() for curses(3).
http://netbsd.org/~kamil/patch-00073-curses-version.txt
The only purpose of this function is to get better compat with ncurses
software.
I needed it originally in qemu. It's someti
Last year, I wrote this patch to add curses_version() for curses(3).
http://netbsd.org/~kamil/patch-00073-curses-version.txt
The only purpose of this function is to get better compat with ncurses
software.
I needed it originally in qemu. It's sometimes used in the wild.
Is it fine to merge it w
26 matches
Mail list logo
