[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Q: why doesn't putty have smkx/rmkx?

From: Leonardo Brondani Schenkel
Subject: Re: Q: why doesn't putty have smkx/rmkx?
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2016 14:47:53 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1

On 16/01/2016 23:59, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> "bash-users" is the explanation for the "linux" entry lacking application
> mode, of course.  I added "xterm-noapp" a while back, to see if I could
> pry those away from hardcoded escapes in .inputrc, but had no measurable
> success.

That is interesting: I thought that the Linux console did not support
application mode and that is why it was not in terminfo. I will try some
Googling to find out the backstory (just to satisfy my own curiosity).

> I can do that for putty: move the existing definition to "putty-noapp"
> and amend "putty" to use application mode.  (I think it's too late for
> "linux-noapp").  It's probably not a huge impact, due to PuTTY's insisting
> on setting TERM to "xterm".

Thanks, that is great.

PuTTY at least allows me to set TERM to any value; that's much better
than OS X Terminal.app (which only allows choosing between a predefined
set of candidates) and GNOME Terminal & friends (which hardcode TERM to
xterm with no way of overriding it that I know of).

P.S.: I hope I'm not beating a dead horse, but why is it too late for

P.P.S.: [off-topic] Sometimes I get the impression that not a lot of
people care about accurate terminal descriptions very much (not
referring to this list). Is it only me?

// Leonardo.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]