Bug 1069473 - Initial 256 Color fails with GNU Screen
Summary: Initial 256 Color fails with GNU Screen
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED EOL
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: screen
Version: 20
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Petr Hracek
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2014-02-25 05:04 UTC by Roger
Modified: 2015-06-29 19:04 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2015-06-29 19:04:46 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Roger 2014-02-25 05:04:16 UTC
When first spawning GNU Screen, 256colors2.pl (script available via web) fails by only displaying 16 bit color.

screen-4.1.0-0.17.20120314git3c2946.fc20.x86_64

How reproducible:

1) Start either xterm or urxvt (ie. Execute xterm or urxvt)
2) Start screen (ie. Execute screen -RD)
3) Execute 256colors2.pl which only shows or displays less than 256 colors, or only displaying the highly contrasting blocky 16 bit colors.

4) Exit all terminals.
5) Perform step #1 above, but now execute 256colors2.pl prior to executing screen -RD, and you should see the (extreme shades of) 256 colors.

NOTE: Prior to executing screen, make sure $TERM xterm-256color or rxvt-unicode-256color.  And when under a screen session $TERM is screen-256color.

Comment 1 Roger 2014-02-25 05:10:48 UTC
256colors2.pl
http://code.google.com/p/joeldotfiles/source/browse/trunk/256colors2.pl

I suspect there is an exotic RedHat/Fedora compile time CFLAG option spawning this bug, as under Gentoo I'm using CFLAGS="-Ofast -march=corei7 -pipe", and CXXFLAGS="${CFLAGS}".  The CFLAG culprit might lead back to the original lines of code, overlooking the $TERM specifying 256 color support.

I'm surprised the problem isn't more evident with my Gentoo CFLAGS, as most bugs are made evident of using such optimizations.  So I speculate this might have something to do with Fedora's stability/hardening CFLAGS?

Comment 2 Fedora End Of Life 2015-05-29 11:02:48 UTC
This message is a reminder that Fedora 20 is nearing its end of life.
Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining
and issuing updates for Fedora 20. It is Fedora's policy to close all
bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time
this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora  'version'
of '20'.

Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you
plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' 
to a later Fedora version.

Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not 
able to fix it before Fedora 20 is end of life. If you would still like 
to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version 
of Fedora, you are encouraged  change the 'version' to a later Fedora 
version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above.

Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's 
lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a 
more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes 
bugs or makes them obsolete.

Comment 3 Fedora End Of Life 2015-06-29 19:04:46 UTC
Fedora 20 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2015-06-23. Fedora 20 is
no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further
security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug.

If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of
Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you
are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the
current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this
bug.

Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.