[pacman-dev] [PATCH 1/1] conf: replace grey46 with bright black
From: Christian Hesse
On 15/6/21 1:24 am, Christian Hesse wrote:
From: Christian Hesse
This is not handled correctly in some situations. For me (with pacman inside tmux inside xfce4-terminal with TERM=xterm) I do not see version strings but huge gaps between package names. Looks like grey46 is round to just back, which is my background color.
Instead use bright black, which is one of the 16 colors and *should* be visible with any configuration. Works for me[tm] and all configurations I tested.
Is there a reason to use TERM=xterm and not something that supports 256 colours? I remember discussing 16 colour terminals at the time this was implemented and deciding they could us NoColor... Allan
On 15/6/21 7:44 am, Allan McRae wrote:
On 15/6/21 1:24 am, Christian Hesse wrote:
From: Christian Hesse
This is not handled correctly in some situations. For me (with pacman inside tmux inside xfce4-terminal with TERM=xterm) I do not see version strings but huge gaps between package names. Looks like grey46 is round to just back, which is my background color.
Instead use bright black, which is one of the 16 colors and *should* be visible with any configuration. Works for me[tm] and all configurations I tested.
Is there a reason to use TERM=xterm and not something that supports 256 colours?
I remember discussing 16 colour terminals at the time this was implemented and deciding they could us NoColor...
BTW - patch rejected. Try in a terminal with white background. Allan
Allan McRae
On 15/6/21 7:44 am, Allan McRae wrote:
On 15/6/21 1:24 am, Christian Hesse wrote:
From: Christian Hesse
This is not handled correctly in some situations. For me (with pacman inside tmux inside xfce4-terminal with TERM=xterm) I do not see version strings but huge gaps between package names. Looks like grey46 is round to just back, which is my background color.
Instead use bright black, which is one of the 16 colors and *should* be visible with any configuration. Works for me[tm] and all configurations I tested.
Is there a reason to use TERM=xterm and not something that supports 256 colours?
I use some applications that decide to use fancy themes with pastel colors when 256 colors are available. Colors are hard to differentiate then, especially in bad light conditions. Just forcing to use 16 colors was the easiest fix there. Did not miss anything till now.
I remember discussing 16 colour terminals at the time this was implemented and deciding they could us NoColor...
BTW - patch rejected. Try in a terminal with white background.
Too bad... Given that a proper solution with 16 colors does exist I can not understand the rationale here. Well, just about to enable VerbosePkgLists then... That prevents the issue as well. -- main(a){char*c=/* Schoene Gruesse */"B?IJj;MEH" "CX:;",b;for(a/* Best regards my address: */=0;b=c[a++];) putchar(b-1/(/* Chris cc -ox -xc - && ./x */b/42*2-3)*42);}
On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 at 22:44, Allan McRae
On 15/6/21 1:24 am, Christian Hesse wrote:
From: Christian Hesse
This is not handled correctly in some situations. For me (with pacman inside tmux inside xfce4-terminal with TERM=xterm) I do not see version strings but huge gaps between package names. Looks like grey46 is round to just back, which is my background color.
Instead use bright black, which is one of the 16 colors and *should* be visible with any configuration. Works for me[tm] and all configurations I tested.
Is there a reason to use TERM=xterm and not something that supports 256 colours?
I remember discussing 16 colour terminals at the time this was implemented and deciding they could us NoColor...
Would it make sense for pacman to fallback to NoColor with an error message, when 256 colors are not supported? Sort of how it already skips VerbosePkgLists when there aren't enough columns. -Emil
participants (3)
-
Allan McRae
-
Christian Hesse
-
Emil Velikov