Re: [Gterm-discuss] Things for me to do

[Timothy M. <th...@ya...>]

--- Jörg Sonnenberger <joe...@we...> wrote:

> > summary page or the one at gterm.sourceforge.net?  Tell me what you
> > want, and I will do it.
> 
> Jep. Since FreeBSD is working (I am using it...), it should be added
> to the
> OS list.

I added FreeBSD and "OS independent" to the list.


> > 
> > Also, another issue is the matter of the license.  I would prefer
> that
> > the library remain under LGPL, but it was suggested that we put it
> > under GPL.  Well, there's the library part and there's the X
> terminal
> > example part.  We could put the latter under GPL.  You guys let me
> know
> > what you want, and we'll come to an agreement on it.
> 
> I think LGPL for the libgterm.a (so?) and GPL for the rest would be
> nice.
> Just a side note: Should the pseudo terminal handling be part of the
> lib?
> At the moment it is.

Personally, I am most interested in seeing other people's enhancements
to GTerm.  I don't feel the need to "open" the rest of their program. 
So if it helps people to include the pseudo terminal stuff in their
program, I'm cool with that.  But on the other hand, the example
terminal is a full application, and it might be good to keep that
completely open.

> Sounds interesting. I thought about porting the library back to C
> somewhere
> in the future, to replace the vt emulation core in the BSD kernel.
> Having a really
> full featured terminal with VT100 compliance, font upload, UTF8 and
> history support,
> with support for advanced text modes (e.g. 128x48 with 16x8 pixel
> fonts on a SVGA
> screen) and reasonable price - the dream of every Emacs user :-)
> OK, I was dreaming, still a lot of work to do...

I'll email you personally the embedded terminal with the understanding
that its original source will stay in confidence, and you will use it
only to enhance GTerm.  Anything that does make it into GTerm is fair
game, however.  (ie. you work for it, you get to keep it.) :)

> One more thing to add concerning FreeBSD and other OS in general.
> It's this
> utmp support. Under FreeBSD is has a different (simpler) structure,
> so there
> we need a compilation switch anyway. Do you agree to keep the utmp
> support
> optional? Without, gterm doesn't need any increasedl rights, at least
> under
> FreeBSD 5 and Linux with Unix 98.

I think we should work towards OS-specific compile-time options that
are largely automatic.  Some of these can be in the Makefile, some can
be in the source code.  To start with, use #ifdefs.  Figure out what
the symbols are which indicate what OS you're on and use those to
choose.


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com