Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 07:09:28 -0300
From: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com>
To: Dima Dorfman <dima@unixfreak.org>
Cc: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG, sheldonh@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: {kbd,vid}control insanity patch
Message-ID: <3B161858.CDBA562C@newsguy.com>
References: <20010531052923.21EE03E0B@bazooka.unixfreak.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dima Dorfman wrote: > > 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?)? I don't see any confusion here. Do I want to change some display property? vidcontrol. Do I want to change some keyboard property? kbdcontrol. To me it's absolutely irrelevant whether the property is per-vty or not. That's something to be documented on the man page and grumbled about elsewhere (like the fact that I wish I could use different keyboard maps on different vtys). Perhaps from a programmer's point of view, one familiar with syscon&cia, the vty-specificness of a function is of rather more importance, but kbdcontrol(1) and vidcontrol(1) are not programm interfaces. -- Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS) dcs@newsguy.com dcs@freebsd.org capo@the.secret.bsdconspiracy.net wow regex humor... I'm a geek 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?3B161858.CDBA562C>