Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 10:20:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: bin/56325: Incorrect information in /etc/gettytab Message-ID: <200309081720.h88HKEJL094351@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR bin/56325; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Yar Tikhiy <yar@comp.chem.msu.su> Cc: mats@snowbee.dyns.cx, FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org Subject: Re: bin/56325: Incorrect information in /etc/gettytab Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 03:14:29 +1000 (EST) On Mon, 8 Sep 2003, Yar Tikhiy wrote: > On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 08:04:01PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote: > > I looked at what the various combinations of parity did when I wrote > > thos lines in gettytab. I haven't looked at them recently (i never > > use anything except np). Perhaps changing getty to termios canonicalized > > the parity support. > > Indeed, it was rev. 1.6 of subr.c that introduced the new behaviour > of the parity flags along with using termios instead of the old BSD > interface to terminals. > > I believe that people use just np nowadays, so the question is > whether the old behaviour of parity flag combinations is worth > restoring. How do you think? Not having it is OK with me. I used just np back when I wrote those lines in gettytab :-). Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200309081720.h88HKEJL094351>