From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 14 06:45:15 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F3EF16A412 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 06:45:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from brunson@brunson.com) Received: from rwcrmhc15.comcast.net (rwcrmhc15.comcast.net [204.127.192.85]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00CCC43CA7 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 06:43:15 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from brunson@brunson.com) Received: from [172.20.0.9] (unknown[12.109.229.8]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc15) with ESMTP id <20061214064439m1500pp9f5e>; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 06:44:43 +0000 Message-ID: <4580F314.8010307@brunson.com> Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 23:45:40 -0700 From: Eric Brunson User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (X11/20061107) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Patch for 'expect' X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 06:45:15 -0000 Hi Ports Maintainers, I just spent the last few days sorting out a problem with expect on my 6.1 box. I have a patch to the expect interpreter on this platform that I'd like to offer for your review. There's a problem with the way expect searches for available ptys that makes it only capable of utilizing the first 64 device nodes rather than the full 256 available. I'm brand new to the FreeBSD community coming from years on Solaris and AIX, so I don't know the "channels" through which to push this. It's a very simple patch, 3 lines of code change, context diff drops right into /usr/ports/lang/expect/files. I also have test cases that show the behavior before and after the patch. I've already sent the patch to the maintainers of expect at NIST for inclusion upstream, if you'd rather wait for their reaction to it, I understand. But since it's a drop in fix I thought I'd offer it for inclusion in the ports tree to fix the problem locally until then. If I'm out of line, please let me know, like I said, I'm new and I'm unsure how to proceed. Sincerely, Eric Brunson