From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Oct 15 08:36:40 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id IAA15068
          for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 15 Oct 1996 08:36:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.19])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA15061
          for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org>; Tue, 15 Oct 1996 08:36:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from bde@localhost) by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.7.6/8.6.9) id BAA14660; Wed, 16 Oct 1996 01:30:00 +1000
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 01:30:00 +1000
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Message-Id: <199610151530.BAA14660@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org, j@uriah.heep.sax.de
Subject: Re: Direct UUCP stopped working but UUCP via PPP still works
Cc: devet@adv.IAEhv.nl
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>> Yes.  Yes.  Because uucp calls tcsetattr() a lot, and the buggy hardware
>> loses sync when the speed is set (even to the same value) while data is
>> arriving.
>
>But why only after an upgrade to 2.1.5?  I thought the buggy UMC8669F
>did hurt us all the way back to (at least) FreeBSD 2.0.5?

Because the hardware and software were upgraded at the same time? :-)

I think the bug report said that 2.1.0 didn't work with the new hardware
either.

Bruce