Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 10:36:23 +0200 From: Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/etc/etc.amd64 ttys src/etc/etc.arm ttys src/etc/etc.i386 ttys src/etc/etc.ia64 ttys src/etc/etc.mips ttys src/etc/etc.powerpc ttys src/etc/etc.sparc64 ttys Message-ID: <20080824083623.GN99951@hoeg.nl> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.1.10.0808240928390.49942@fledge.watson.org> References: <200808231436.m7NEasMo005071@repoman.freebsd.org> <alpine.BSF.1.10.0808232024440.49942@fledge.watson.org> <20080823215322.GJ99951@hoeg.nl> <alpine.BSF.1.10.0808232312310.49942@fledge.watson.org> <20080823222745.GL99951@hoeg.nl> <alpine.BSF.1.10.0808240928390.49942@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] * Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > > On Sun, 24 Aug 2008, Ed Schouten wrote: > >> * Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> wrote: >>> So users using slightly old versions of screen, etc, shouldn't appear >>> in finger(1), w(1), or receive messages from biff(1), talk(1), >>> write(1), wall(1), shutdown(8), and dump(8), all of which (I believe) >>> rely on utmp(5) to determine who is logged in and where? I'm sure >>> that quite a few of these are of diminishing significance in the >>> current world order (certainly biff is), but I'm not convinced that >>> we should exclude users on historic tty devices from receiving >>> advance notice of system shutdowns or dump events. >> >> Right now we're actually digging up the entire dynamic vs static >> linkage discussion again. If people run a dynamically linked version of >> screen, xterm, etc, they are not affected (except libc.so.6 of course). > > I'm not sure I see such a tight congruence: historical applications don't > use the POSIX PTY calls, since they didn't exist or were unreliably > implemented for many years. Instead, applications embedded the pty > allocation policy in the same way they embed the BPF allocation policy, > which is to search a series of hard-coded names until they find a match. > >> The current /etc/ttys already seemed like an improvement when compared >> to the old one, where we spent 2 out of 3 entries on commonly unused >> PTY names. What kind of ratio do you propose? > > For 256 lines in /etc/ttys, you can keep people's systems working with > older applications. Doesn't seem like a big sacrifice -- it's not like > we're forcing Giant to be kept on part of the kernel, etc. Okay. Sounds okay. That means we've basically switched the priorities. First we had: - 512 entries for pty(4) - 256 entries for pts(4) Now we're going to switch it to: - 256 entries for pty(4) - 512 entries for pts(4) I'll only add the entries for tty[pqrsPQRS]. -- Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl> WWW: http://80386.nl/ [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkixHYcACgkQ52SDGA2eCwX7dACdEZbth4vKVnYcfMbwyahAtyqR hikAn33GgFDbmvt4H367zHsAD6ShMrtr =J9IO -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080824083623.GN99951>