[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c535f22f-bdf6-446e-ba73-1df291a504f9@gedalya.net>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2024 22:11:41 +0800
From: Gedalya <gedalya@...alya.net>
To: Dragan Simic <dsimic@...jaro.org>
Cc: Sirius <sirius@...dheim.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: iproute2: color output should assume dark background
On 5/23/24 10:02 PM, Dragan Simic wrote:
> See, once something becomes de facto standard, or some kind of de facto
> standard, it becomes quite hard to change it. It's often required to
> offer much greater flexibility instead of just changing it.
>
Flexibility is offered by the COLORFGBG variable. The entire time we've
been talking only about cases where that is not set.
Again, it is good to reduce to a minimum reliance on defaults. But aside
from having a default the remaining option is to refuse to produce
colors when COLORFGBG is not set, even when the user is explicitly
asking for colors.
>>> everywhere and for the new feature to reach the users. Shipping
>>> a few additional files in the /etc/profile.d directory would be a
>>> reasonable stopgap measure.
>>
>> No, it would be totally broken as explained.
>
> It would be broken only for those users who change their background
> color to some light color. Though, it would be broken even with your
> patch applied, right? I see no difference in the end results, for the
> users that reconfigure their terminals that way.
>
/etc/profile.d is shell session configuration.
If you want you can come up with shell magic that would set environment
variables depending on which terminal environment the shell is running in.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists