RE: [LINUX5250] Screen bleeding

[James Rich <james@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Ruel, Marc-Antoine wrote:

> I still have some "fear" about the merge. It's about the way both 
> project diverted from the main branch. I don't feel confident about it 
> since my merge capabilities are limited; I don't even have CVS software 
> currently installed on my machine but that should be fixed soon. :)
>
> I don't want to put all the burden of merging on you but the sooner we 
> can merge everything back in the main tree, the better it is.

It would be great to have everything merged into cvs, but I think we 
should first work out the differences between our implementations and then 
submit the results for inclusion.  I don't mind working through this 
stuff.  If we can make a version of tn5250 that works, perhaps the patches 
will more likely be accepted.

> I haven't looked at the x5250 sources but why is it branched from 
> tn5250? Is it so different in implementation?

x5250 is another front end to tn5250.  It uses lib5250 for all the 
communication with the as/400 and 5250 protocols.  x5250 can run with an 
unmodified tn5250 (lib5250) but then it doesn't have any of the new 
features I've been working on adding.

It is packaged separately from tn5250 for two reasons:  x5250 is GPL and 
apparently there are license issues with openssl that tn5250 uses and 
secondly I don't have cvs write access.

James Rich

It's not the software that's free; it's you.
        - billyskank on Groklaw