On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 05:28:57PM +0200, Teun Vink wrote:
> No, it will definately never fit in a 80 char wide terminal.
> It'll depend on how long the descriptions are, but the current output
> already is 80 chars wide.
This got me thinking how quagga could use wider terminals - xterm
will handle plenty more than 80 chars, and when doing IPv6 stuff,
it would be a real help
I did a quick grep thru the code, looking for occurances of '80',
or '79', or even WIDTH, but didn't look close enough , or went
blind.
Anyone know where and how the code enforces the 80 character
limit ?
(And no, I'm not advocating changing the default width - As other
posters have mentioned, it would break people's scripts etc, but
the ability to change a #define to allow quagga to handle 132
All the Best
Iain
> No, it will definately never fit in a 80 char wide terminal.
> It'll depend on how long the descriptions are, but the current output
> already is 80 chars wide.
This got me thinking how quagga could use wider terminals - xterm
will handle plenty more than 80 chars, and when doing IPv6 stuff,
it would be a real help
I did a quick grep thru the code, looking for occurances of '80',
or '79', or even WIDTH, but didn't look close enough , or went
blind.
Anyone know where and how the code enforces the 80 character
limit ?
(And no, I'm not advocating changing the default width - As other
posters have mentioned, it would break people's scripts etc, but
the ability to change a #define to allow quagga to handle 132
All the Best
Iain