HEADS UP: pts code committed
smckay at internode.on.net
Mon Jan 30 03:03:23 PST 2006
On Saturday, 28th January 2006, Robert Watson wrote:
>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.
I had a quick look on a Solaris 8 machine and found only legacy pty devices
in /dev. In /devices, they lump pts and pty nodes into /devices/pseudo
with a lot of other stuff. Very messy. So I don't think the new FreeBSD
/dev/ptynnn behaviour is the same as Solaris after all. I checked a Fedora
Core 4 box too, and it doesn't put the pty's in /dev at all. At least in
all implementations the important part (/dev/pts/nnn) is the same.
Anyway, I can't find anything that depends on the naming for the master and
it would make /dev tidier to bury pty's in a subdirectory. Shall we add
that one missing '/'? The code would then match the comments. :-)
Alternatively, the other implementations seem to get by without putting
them in the tree at all. Do we need them?
More information about the freebsd-current