Looks like termcap.small is missing some entries and changes that were committed in the past 10+ years. This change aims at fixing it by removing the need to do manual synchronization and simply building termcap.small automatically along with the rest of the world, thus ensuring 100% current and future synchronization.
Details
Details
Diff Detail
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rG FreeBSD src repository
- Lint
Lint Not Applicable - Unit
Tests Not Applicable
Event Timeline
Comment Actions
Works for me, but why do we even bother with a small termcap at all? Is the added complexity worth any "speedup" that I'm sure might not even be measurable on today's systems?
Comment Actions
aggreed with @uqs with in my previous work on terminfo I planned to nuke support for termcap.small, but I haven't been brave enough to push it, as I was expecting backfire.
Comment Actions
I'm kinda agnostic on this.
I created termcap.small 20ish years ago to have a termcap that's good enough for me to vi files on the embedded systems I logged into.
It was originally trimmed to fit into < 512 bytes so it fit into one block on a 16MB CF card that I was a little tight on space on.
Those systems were retired, scrapped and shredded 10-12 years ago (my info about that is a little sketchy, but I do know the company I worked for no longer supports them for that time).
It's still likely useful, but only because I'm not sure how many people would use the terminals that are in the remainder of the file.... There's a lot of old-school terminals that were almost obsolete when I was in college...
So if you must, this seems as sane as any other option.
Comment Actions
termcap.small is still useful I think for the case when /usr is not mounted (i.e. single-user/recovery mode in a traditional FS layout). These days of course most people are using monolithic root+usr esp with ZFS, however we for example have 200+ systems in the field partitioned in a traditional way, so I am wondering how many there may be people like us out there.