[GRASS-dev] hardcoded 'xterm': wrapper?

[Michael Barton]

Where are hard-coded xterm references causing a problem? Is it only in the
GUI or is it elsewhere?

If only in the GUI, there is already a wrapper for nearly all xterm use. We
just need to make it consistent across the entire set of TclTk scripts.
Also, if it is just in the GUI, it might be better to make the wrapper in
TclTk than a shell script. If we need it elsewhere, however, I guess a shell
script is the way to go.

Michael
__________________________________________
Michael Barton, Professor of Anthropology
School of Human Evolution & Social Change
Center for Social Dynamics & Complexity
Arizona State University

phone: 480-965-6213
fax: 480-965-7671
www: http://www.public.asu.edu/~cmbarton



> From: Markus Neteler <neteler at itc.it>
> Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 15:09:42 +0200
> To: GRASS developers list <grass-dev at grass.itc.it>
> Subject: Re: [GRASS-dev] hardcoded 'xterm': wrapper?
> 
> On Sun, Aug 27, 2006 at 12:52:35PM +0100, Glynn Clements wrote:
>> 
>> Markus Neteler wrote:
>> 
>>> Debian folks are unhappy with the hardcoded 'xterm' in
>>> many places and suggest to replace it with a wrapper script so
>>> that they have to change it in a single place later.
>>> 
>>> They do:
>>> http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/pkg-grass/packages/grass/branches/6.1/debian/patc
>>> hes/xterm-fix.dpatch?op=file&rev=0&sc=0
>>> 
>>> Should we invent a 'grass-xterm' script (in $ETC?) for
>>> that? What would be the needed content (thinking portability)?
>> 
>> That's one option; another is an environment variable, GRASS_XTERM. If
>> a wrapper script is used, it should check $GRASS_XTERM before falling
>> back to x-terminal-emulator or xterm.
> 
> Based on above diff I have prepared a wrapper script and a patch:
> 
> http://mpa.itc.it/markus/xterm_wrapper/
> 
> I am not sure if and where the 'exec's are needed (see patch)
>  
>> In the longer term, we need to make more progress on eliminating the
>> need for a terminal. The inability to access certain functionality
>> without a (curses-compatible) terminal should be considered a bug.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> Markus
> 
>