From owner-cvs-sbin Tue Sep 19 09:53:11 1995 Return-Path: owner-cvs-sbin Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id JAA16969 for cvs-sbin-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 09:53:11 -0700 Received: from irz301.inf.tu-dresden.de (irz301.inf.tu-dresden.de [141.76.1.11]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id JAA16956 ; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 09:53:02 -0700 Received: from sax.sax.de by irz301.inf.tu-dresden.de (8.6.12/8.6.12-s1) with ESMTP id SAA10496; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 18:51:52 +0200 Received: by sax.sax.de (8.6.11/8.6.12-s1) with UUCP id SAA11419; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 18:51:51 +0200 Received: (from j@localhost) by uriah.heep.sax.de (8.6.12/8.6.9) id SAA06595; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 18:20:50 +0200 From: J Wunsch Message-Id: <199509191620.SAA06595@uriah.heep.sax.de> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sbin/slattach uucplock.c Makefile To: ache@astral.msk.su (=?KOI8-R?Q?=E1=CE=C4=D2=C5=CA_=FE=C5=D2=CE=CF=D7?=) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 18:20:49 +0200 (MET DST) Cc: ache@freefall.freebsd.org, joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de, CVS-commiters@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-sbin@freefall.freebsd.org In-Reply-To: from "=?KOI8-R?Q?=E1=CE=C4=D2=C5=CA_=FE=C5=D2=CE=CF=D7?=" at Sep 19, 95 12:28:13 pm X-Phone: +49-351-2012 669 X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Length: 1009 Sender: owner-cvs-sbin@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk As =?KOI8-R?Q?=E1=CE=C4=D2=C5=CA_=FE=C5=D2=CE=CF=D7?= wrote: > > >Your changes will most likely now have broken > >my SLIP wrapper. :-( You would better have put this into the slipdial should have been: startslip > >program. > > It *is* slipdial program. And it needs lock tty, because it can be stolen > in the middle. Basically all dialout programs needs to lock tty. > Now it does right thing. Check your wrapper better. My wrapper does dialing on its own (with chat(1) from the ppp package). In order to dial and not being disturbed by e.g. mgetty, i have to obtain the lock before dialing starts. Hence i create the lockfile (or reduce to go on). If the lock fails, the wrapper will never start slattach at all. Well, as long as slattach doesn't give up when the lockfile already exists, i wouldn't mind. -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)