Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 04:20:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Mats Peterson <mats@snowbee.dyns.cx> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: bin/56325: Incorrect information in /etc/gettytab Message-ID: <200309091120.h89BK3Pp099824@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR bin/56325; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Mats Peterson <mats@snowbee.dyns.cx> To: bde@zeta.org.au, yar@freebsd.org Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org, mats@snowbee.dyns.cx Subject: Re: bin/56325: Incorrect information in /etc/gettytab Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 13:12:56 +0200 (CEST) > On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 03:14:29AM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote: > > > > > > I believe that people use just np nowadays, so the question is > > > whether the old behaviour of parity flag combinations is worth > > > restoring. How do you think? > > > > Not having it is OK with me. I used just np back when I wrote those > > lines in gettytab :-). > > As long as nobody has actually needed the old functionality in the > last 9 years, I'll just match the comment at the top of gettytab > with the harsh reality of the XXI century :-) > > -- > Yar > It's still nice if it's there for a reason, though. EVEN if most people use no parity nowadays. I had to look at the source to find out why it didn't work as expected. I guess not everyone is too keen on doing that... Mats
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200309091120.h89BK3Pp099824>