1.1.8: Too large entry in termcap file

Alois Steindl Alois.Steindl+e325@tuwien.ac.at
Mon Jun 18 15:41:00 GMT 2001

> On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 12:12:01PM +0200, Alois Steindl wrote:
> >On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 23:29:36 -0400,
> >Christopher Faylor <cgf at redhat dot com> wrote:
> >>Looking at the entry that is in termcap for linux, I don't see any way
> >>around this.  I did compare it against the entry from Red Hat and I see
> >>that they just squeak in under 1024.
> >
> >I get 1042 for linux and 1034 for cygwin
> In that case, linux is non-compliant too.  I believe that the 1024 is
> supposed to include the null byte.
Mathematically, 1042 is strictly larger than 1024. 
cygwin returns 1038 rather than 1034. 

> However, the termcap entry has been in this state for a long time with
> very few (if any) bug reports prior to this.
> I suggested that you might want to provide a patch if you can find
> something which could be nuked from the termcap entry.  If that is not
> something that you are willing to do, then the other alternative is to
> modify your program.
I am already quite happy with "my" program (actually, it is from the
"net"): I got rid of termcap.
Could you please at least correct the manual page to reflect your

> If I see a bunch of people reporting this problem then maybe I'll look
> into changing it.  Until then, since it has been like this for a year or
> so, I don't see any urgency.  We have other problems to deal with for
> now.
> cgf
Certainly a funny and interesting method to deal with problems. Wasn't
the Ariane V failure
caused by a similar attitude? (No problems until today, we keep
everything as is).
But I am quite sure: That problem will not bite _me_ again. I had hoped
to avoid that for other 
users also.

Best regards

Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

More information about the Cygwin mailing list