[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: mc-4.6.1-20060912.patch

Subject: Re: mc-4.6.1-20060912.patch
From: Pavel Tsekov
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 00:16:44 +0300 EEST
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006, Thomas Dickey wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Sep 2006, Pavel Tsekov wrote:
>
>> Do you mind to post a reference to that discussion so it can be verified ?
>
> Here's another (though I still don't see the particular one I had in mind)
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/linux.debian.bugs.dist/browse_frm/thread/a6ae02f59bed4d8f/66481938acc67375?lnk=st&q=(ncurses+OR+xterm+OR+vttest+OR+cproto+OR+diffstat+OR+terminfo+OR+termcap)&rnum=123&hl=en#66481938acc67375

By the way the following statements are quite incorrect:

"MC "could" be built with ncurses, but its maintainers have been not
much interested in maintaining that configuration(*)."

"(*) equally, since MC for quite a while used gcc-specific code which 
would not compile with an ANSI C compiler, I was uninterested in wasting 
much time with it. "

I myself am using MC with ncurses most of the tmie. The Cygwin package
for MC, which I maintain, is compiled against ncurses. I have spent
considerable amount of time tracking bugs in MC to make it work
correct with ncurses.

I build MC on my Solaris 10 machine on a regular basis with Sun's
compiler. I've also built MC on Tru64 with Compaq/HP's compiler.

You seem to try to spread misinformation regarding MC
on every possible occasion as you did in the Debian bug
tracking system.

_______________________________________________
Mc mailing list
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>