HEADS UP: pts code committed

[Robert Watson]

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006, Stephen McKay wrote:

> On Thursday, 26th January 2006, Robert Watson wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, Olivier Houchard wrote:
>>
>>> Robert Watson and myself have been working on a pts implementation, ala
>>> SysV/linux, for quite some time...
>
> This is a long overdue feature, so well done!
>
> However there's something that looks a bit odd to me, and since I don't have 
> -current set up at the moment, I can't check directly, so I'll ask here: Is 
> it true that the naming scheme uses /dev/pts/999 and /dev/pty999, not 
> /dev/pty/999?  If so, that looks like a mistake.  Is there something 
> stopping the cleaner naming being used?
>
> If I've just read the code wrong, then I apologise and will immediately 
> clear bench space for a -current test box!

You are right, that is what it does.  This is actually an intentional design 
choice to match the behavior in Solaris, which also names them /dev/ptyp*. 
Well, strictly speaking, those are just symlinks into /devices, but it comes 
to much the same thing.  You are probably right, though -- naming them 
/dev/pty/* would make more sense, and won't affect the libc API.

Robert N M Watson