Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 23:17:39 +0100 (BST) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl> Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/etc/etc.amd64 ttys src/etc/etc.arm ttys src/etc/etc.i386 ttys src/etc/etc.ia64 ttys src/etc/etc.mips ttys src/etc/etc.powerpc ttys src/etc/etc.sparc64 ttys Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.1.10.0808232312310.49942@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <20080823215322.GJ99951@hoeg.nl> References: <200808231436.m7NEasMo005071@repoman.freebsd.org> <alpine.BSF.1.10.0808232024440.49942@fledge.watson.org> <20080823215322.GJ99951@hoeg.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 23 Aug 2008, Ed Schouten wrote: >> Won't older pty-using binaries from 4.x/5.x/6.x/7.x running with compat >> parts or old library versions still use old-style ptys, and hence need them >> in /etc/ttys? > > It really depends on what your definition of "need" is in this case. The > reason why PTY's are listed in /etc/ttys, is to store login entries in > /var/run/utmp. This means lastlog and wtmp are not affected. > > There is no need for an entry in /etc/ttys to be able to use a TTY and there > is no guarantee an application using PTY's actually logs its usage in any > logfile. > > The reason why I chose to remove the old devices and add some additional > lines for pts(4), was because I was looking at a typical setup. The previous > /etc/ttys was quite broken in two ways: So users using slightly old versions of screen, etc, shouldn't appear in finger(1), w(1), or receive messages from biff(1), talk(1), write(1), wall(1), shutdown(8), and dump(8), all of which (I believe) rely on utmp(5) to determine who is logged in and where? I'm sure that quite a few of these are of diminishing significance in the current world order (certainly biff is), but I'm not convinced that we should exclude users on historic tty devices from receiving advance notice of system shutdowns or dump events. Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge > > - It contained 512 entries for a PTY naming scheme that (in RFC terms) > SHOULD NOT be used on most common setups. > > - It contained 256 entries for a PTY naming scheme that we use right > now. > > If we wanted to make everyone happy, I could have just added all pts(4) > entries from 0 to 999, but that would have made /var/run/utmp at least > 75 KB, which is a little big in my opinion. Rhis is why I, based on my > expectations of the typical use case, decided to remove the pty(4) > entries and extend the pts(4) ones. > > -- > Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl> > WWW: http://80386.nl/ >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.1.10.0808232312310.49942>