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
Sorry for the top post...
I agree with Roy here, if we add the call we should spit out the
version of the curses lib. If someone tries to interpret the
contents of the return without consulting the man pages and derives
false information then that is their issue - really the call name
should be i
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
25 matches
Mail list logo