From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#8838: tty-run-terminal-initialization fails Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2011 21:08:52 +0300 Message-ID: <83mxhmapmz.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83wrgrah0a.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1307902284 3318 80.91.229.12 (12 Jun 2011 18:11:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2011 18:11:24 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 8838@debbugs.gnu.org To: Andreas Schwab Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jun 12 20:11:18 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QVp81-0006QK-CN for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 12 Jun 2011 20:11:17 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:56528 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QVp80-0006UX-HX for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 12 Jun 2011 14:11:16 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:57882) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QVp7n-0006UP-Tg for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 12 Jun 2011 14:11:04 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QVp7m-0002U0-Ux for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 12 Jun 2011 14:11:03 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:40536) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QVp7m-0002Tv-OC for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 12 Jun 2011 14:11:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QVp7l-0001We-OV; Sun, 12 Jun 2011 14:11:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2011 18:11:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 8838 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 8838-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B8838.13079022305825 (code B ref 8838); Sun, 12 Jun 2011 18:11:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 8838) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Jun 2011 18:10:30 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QVp7G-0001Vu-Ac for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 12 Jun 2011 14:10:30 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il ([80.179.55.166]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QVp7D-0001Vh-Iq for 8838@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 12 Jun 2011 14:10:29 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0LMO00500VAKDV00@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for 8838@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 12 Jun 2011 21:10:21 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.126.164.125]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0LMO00423VT42HJ0@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Sun, 12 Jun 2011 21:10:20 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2011 14:11:01 -0400 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:47100 Archived-At: > From: Andreas Schwab > Cc: Glenn Morris , 8838@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2011 09:46:23 +0200 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > > What kind of beast is xterm-vt220? How is it different from xterm? > > $ infocmp xterm xterm-vt220 > comparing xterm to xterm-vt220. The differences seem significant enough to justify a separate configuration.