Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 06:38:24 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: "Jeroen C. van Gelderen" <jeroen@vangelderen.org>, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <asmodai@FreeBSD.ORG>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Small MAKEDEV bug Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0005090546310.6783-100000@besplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <20000508115806.C51478@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 8 May 2000, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Sun, May 07, 2000 at 03:27:07PM -0400, Jeroen C. van Gelderen wrote:
> > Or just settle for a more intuitive solution:
> > MAKEDEV acd2 creates /dev/acd2
> > MAKEDEV 2 acd creates /dev/acd[01]
> > which would allow for "MAKEDEV 64 da" and "MAKEDEV 256 pty"
>
> I agree with this syntax and after sending my message to you, was sitting
> there thinking "MAKEDEV <num_of_devs> <dev_name>" would make a really
> nice clear syntax. If you can get BDE's buy-in and other BSD
> traditionalists I think this would be great.
I don't buy it :-). This syntax is similar to a special case of the syntax
of jot(1). It's better to use jot(1) directly, e.g.:
MAKEDEV $(jot -w da 2 0) # make 2 acd devices beginning at acd0
Bruce
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0005090546310.6783-100000>