Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 22:29:22 -0700
From: Dima Dorfman <dima@unixfreak.org>
To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG, sheldonh@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: {kbd,vid}control insanity patch
Message-ID: <20010531052923.21EE03E0B@bazooka.unixfreak.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0105302228020.17744-100000@besplex.bde.org>; from bde@zeta.org.au on "Wed, 30 May 2001 23:13:20 %2B1000 (EST)"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> writes: > On Tue, 29 May 2001, Dima Dorfman wrote: > > > Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> writes: > > > Dima Dorfman <dima@unixfreak.org> writes: > > > > Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> writes: > > > > > Damn, yet another kbdcontrol bug. This - like every other vty- > > > > > specific knob - should be in vidcontrol. > > > > Are keymaps vty-specific? > > > > > > No, they're global. > > > > Okay, then that leaves -f, -F, -b, and -r in kbdcontrol. The patch > > attached below moves those to vidcontrol as -F, -G, -B, and -R, > > respectively. If this ends up getting committed I'll gladly nuke > > allscreens_kbdflags. > > Not OK. The "vid" in vidcontrol means "video", not "vty". The keyboard > functions were intentionally split off from the video functions when > vidcontrol(1) and kbdcontrol(1) were spawned from syscons(1). Everything > may belong in syscons(1) again, but the interfaces should not be > gratuitously different from those in the utilities for other console > drivers. pcvt already has enough gratuitous differences in its scon(1) > and kcon(1) utilities. I'm not quite sure what you're objecting to here; is it the option names (the fact that they'd have to be different) or that keyboard-related options are going into vid[eo]control? Perhaps both? Anyway, the option names are different simply because vidcontrol already has options with the orignal letters. I agree with your assertion that keyboard stuff shouldn't be in a program that's supposed to control video. However, DES is right that it is needlessly confusing to have two programs for vty-specific syscons stuff. So what do you (and Sheldon) suggest? Rename vidcontrol to <something-else>control? Is the reason for splitting syscons(1) into kbdcontrol(1) and vidcontrol(1) still valid (what was the reason, anyway?)? Regards, Dima Dorfman dima@unixfreak.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010531052923.21EE03E0B>