Paul Franklin <pf.rhlists@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On 9/16/09, James Antill <james-yum@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> I assume the above patches makes everything look fine again in emacs?
>
> Was that comment addressed to me (as opposed to the list)?
> If so, I have no idea how to regenerate yum, recreate it, etc.
Yeh, you don't need to regenerate it ... just apply the change
directly to: rpm -ql python-urlgrabber | fgrep progress
>> Do you know if there is a reason that emacs chops a character off the
>> width?
>
> While I have used emacs for more than a quarter-century, I'm
> afraid I don't have any knowledge of its detailed rationale. If it
> is displaying a long line (hundreds of characters for instance)
> it shows it as a sequence of <79 chars><backslash><a return
> (invisible of course)><79 chars><backslash><a return><79
> chars><backslash><a return> and so on until it shows the
> line of <less than 79 chars> and goes on to the next one.
> I suppose it uses the same logic on yum's 80-character lines.
Right, which is fine for 81 characters and above ... but seems stupid
to do for 80 characters (esp. as, I assume, emacs is reporting that
there is a width of 80).
> If you don't think making a "wholesale" change is the right way
> to do it, how about several "retail" changes (at each place the
> trailing space is made?). It is not clear to me what value there
> is in a trailing space -- a space at the end of a line, just before
> a return. I don't see that it has any effect, does any formatting.
> It could be argued there is no need for any such spaces at all.
The space at the end is a red herring, it was there before in a bunch
of places. It's possible we could remove it but I can't see how it'll
solve any of your problems.
The real change was yum moved from assuming ~80 characters terminal
widths to asking the terminal the width and using all available
space.
> ("80" is round, "79" isn't), I don't see that the average user would
> notice or care whether 79 were typed out or 80. If so, why not
> revert it (to "77" again?) or shorten it (to "79")?
You might be shocked at what people will bug us about, only this week
someone complained because running yum inside emacs was broken ;)
But I suggest applying the patch, which shortens it to 79. Then
assuming it works for you, one of us can try and find out why emacs is
being weird.
--
James Antill -- james@xxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
Yum mailing list
Yum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.baseurl.org/mailman/listinfo/yum
