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

Ed Schouten ed at
Sat Aug 23 22:27:47 UTC 2008

* Robert Watson <rwatson at> 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 of course).

The amount of people that run a statically linked login service already
ripped off their seal of warranty in my opinion, but I'd rather not make
a bikeshed out of this.

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?

 Ed Schouten <ed at>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :

More information about the cvs-all mailing list