From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Sep 11 08:30:08 2003
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 3F49E16A4C1; Thu, 11 Sep 2003 08:30:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from k6.locore.ca (k6.locore.ca [198.96.117.170])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 291D044014; Thu, 11 Sep 2003 08:30:05 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from jake@locore.ca)
Received: by k6.locore.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id 68EA11A3D8; Thu, 11 Sep 2003 11:32:13 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 11:32:13 -0400
From: Jake Burkholder <jake@locore.ca>
To: David O'Brien <obrien@FreeBSD.org>
Message-ID: <20030911153213.GD12432@locore.ca>
References: <200309110014.h8B0EHOX044603@repoman.freebsd.org>
	<xzpisnz68d0.fsf@dwp.des.no> <20030911151425.GA85714@dragon.nuxi.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20030911151425.GA85714@dragon.nuxi.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
cc: Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav <des@des.no>
cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org
cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org
cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/etc/etc.sparc64 ttys
X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree <cvs-src.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-src>,
	<mailto:cvs-src-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-src>
List-Post: <mailto:cvs-src@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cvs-src-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-src>,
	<mailto:cvs-src-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 15:30:08 -0000

Apparently, On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 08:14:25AM -0700,
	David O'Brien said words to the effect of;

> On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 10:24:11AM +0200, Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote:
> > Jake Burkholder <jake@FreeBSD.org> writes:
> > >   Log:
> > >   Changed the ttyd entries to ttyu, which correspond to the device nodes
> > >   created by uart(4).
> > 
> > Is there a good reason for uart to use ttyu instead of ttyd?  There's
> > no risk of conflict even if both uart and sio are present, thanks to
> > devfs, so why not use the traditional name?
> 
> I hate to say it -- as an owner of sparc64 and amd64, alpha, & i386
> FreeBSD machines using serial consoles and thus affected by this, I agree
> with des.
> 

I didn't pick the name and don't see that it makes much difference.  You'll
have to take this up with Marcel.

Jake