Re: 256 colors
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 10:25:55AM EDT, Alain Bench wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sunday, August 27, 2006 at 10:58:10 -0400, cga2000 wrote:
>
> > the easiest would be to infocmp screen-bce and tic it back as
> > xterm-256color somewhere else
> No: That would be a mistake. To work properly, such setup needs
> both the correct TERM=xterm-256color for the real terminal outside
> and under Screen, and a TERM=screen-256color (or variant) for
> inside Screen. GNU screen does translations between the
> underlying real terminal, and the virtual terminal it implements.
Well .. as a temporary solution .. what I had in mind was running the
underlying xterm with the original TERM=xterm-256color and my screen
terminal sessions with TERM set to my doctored xterm-256color -- alias
screen-bce.
The more I think about it this is likely to cause problems. Especially
since you tell me that gnu/screen accesses both the "screen" terminfo
entry and the undelying xterm's.
> | screen-256color-bce|GNU Screen with 256 colors and BCE,
> | sgr0=\E[m^O,
> | ccc@, initc@,
> | use=xterm+256color,
> | use=screen-bce,
I understand that:
1. whatever is hardcoded in the screen-256color-bce entry overrides the
like-named stuff in xterm-256color
2. whatever is common to both xterm-256color and screen-bce will take
its value from screen-bce .. or is it the other way round ..?
"man tic" is unclear about the latter point.
But what I am really concerned about is that this might not work where
mutt is concerned.
It looks like mutt is aware of certain 256-capable terminals based on
their terminfo name. So I was hoping to fool mutt into thinking that
he was dealing with one of them.
As far as I can tell, screen-bce supports 256 colors .. Provided the
underlying xterm also does. I run both ELinks and Vim in 256 color
mode with TERM=screen-bce without any problems.
Why would mutt be any different than these two other apps and complain
about my terminal not supporting 256 colors?
Thanks
cga