From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 28 12:31:59 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2438F16A422; Sat, 28 Jan 2006 12:31:59 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from smckay@internode.on.net) Received: from ash25e.internode.on.net (ash25e.internode.on.net [203.16.214.182]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52AD143D48; Sat, 28 Jan 2006 12:31:58 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from smckay@internode.on.net) Received: from dungeon.home (ppp117-204.lns1.bne3.internode.on.net [59.167.117.204]) by ash25e.internode.on.net (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k0SCVpgM028291; Sat, 28 Jan 2006 23:01:51 +1030 (CST) (envelope-from smckay@internode.on.net) Received: from dungeon.home (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dungeon.home (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k0SCVhtc011525; Sat, 28 Jan 2006 22:31:43 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from mckay) Message-Id: <200601281231.k0SCVhtc011525@dungeon.home> To: Robert Watson References: <20060126022854.GA16323@ci0.org> <20060126020818.K97024@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <20060126020818.K97024@fledge.watson.org> from Robert Watson at "Thu, 26 Jan 2006 02:15:30 +0000" Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 22:31:43 +1000 From: Stephen McKay Cc: current@freebsd.org, Stephen McKay Subject: Re: HEADS UP: pts code committed X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 12:31:59 -0000 On Thursday, 26th January 2006, Robert Watson wrote: >On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, Olivier Houchard wrote: > >> Robert Watson and myself have been working on a pts implementation, ala >> SysV/linux, for quite some time... This is a long overdue feature, so well done! However there's something that looks a bit odd to me, and since I don't have -current set up at the moment, I can't check directly, so I'll ask here: Is it true that the naming scheme uses /dev/pts/999 and /dev/pty999, not /dev/pty/999? If so, that looks like a mistake. Is there something stopping the cleaner naming being used? If I've just read the code wrong, then I apologise and will immediately clear bench space for a -current test box! Stephen.