From owner-freebsd-hackers  Fri Nov  8 03:59:19 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id DAA27718
          for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 8 Nov 1996 03:59:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from delphi.bsd.uchicago.edu (delphi.bsd.uchicago.edu [128.135.5.5])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id DAA27713
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Fri, 8 Nov 1996 03:59:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bio-5.bsd.uchicago.edu (bio-5.bsd.uchicago.edu [128.135.75.14]) by delphi.bsd.uchicago.edu (8.7.6/8.7.3/BSD-4.0) with SMTP id EAA22867 for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Fri, 8 Nov 1996 04:05:00 -0600 (CST)
Received: by bio-5.bsd.uchicago.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA11205; Fri, 8 Nov 1996 04:04:53 +0600
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 04:04:53 +0600
Message-Id: <9611081004.AA11205@bio-5.bsd.uchicago.edu>
To: hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: TIOCSPGRP on ptys?
From: Tim Pierce <twpierce@midway.uchicago.edu>
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

In 2.1.5, TIOCSPGRP ioctls cannot be made on slave
pseudo-terminals.  In fact, the source for kern/tty_pty.c seems to
be written to prevent *any* ioctls from being performed on slave
ptys, and to prevent most TIOC ioctls from being performed on
master ptys.

Am I reading the source correctly?  This behavior seems to be
inconsistent with the pty(4) man page:

	The slave device provides to a process an in-
	terface identical to that described in tty(4).

If this is the intended behavior, what is the `correct'
(i.e. portable, non-deprecated) method for setting the process
group for a pty?  I see a TIOCSCTTY ioctl and a `login_tty'
function in libutil, but no documentation, and am not sure whether
these interfaces are stable or experimental.