Re: mc-4.6.1-20060912.patch
- From: Pavel Tsekov <ptsekov gmx net>
- To: Thomas Dickey <dickey his com>
- Cc: mc gnome org
- Subject: Re: mc-4.6.1-20060912.patch
- 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.
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]