From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Aug 23 22:27:47 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 074471065670; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 22:27:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ed@hoeg.nl) Received: from palm.hoeg.nl (mx0.hoeg.nl [IPv6:2001:610:652::211]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA2CB8FC0A; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 22:27:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ed@hoeg.nl) Received: by palm.hoeg.nl (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E347E1CE1E; Sun, 24 Aug 2008 00:27:45 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 00:27:45 +0200 From: Ed Schouten To: Robert Watson Message-ID: <20080823222745.GL99951@hoeg.nl> References: <200808231436.m7NEasMo005071@repoman.freebsd.org> <20080823215322.GJ99951@hoeg.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="2ItTUDFNGRP62uHp" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) 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 X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 22:27:47 -0000 --2ItTUDFNGRP62uHp Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable * Robert Watson wrote: > So users using slightly old versions of screen, etc, shouldn't appear in = =20 > finger(1), w(1), or receive messages from biff(1), talk(1), write(1),=20 > wall(1), shutdown(8), and dump(8), all of which (I believe) rely on=20 > utmp(5) to determine who is logged in and where? I'm sure that quite a= =20 > few of these are of diminishing significance in the current world order= =20 > (certainly biff is), but I'm not convinced that we should exclude users= =20 > on historic tty devices from receiving advance notice of system shutdowns= =20 > or dump events. Right now we're actually digging up the entire dynamic vs static linkage discussion again. If people run a dynamically linked version of screen, xterm, etc, they are not affected (except libc.so.6 of course). The amount of people that run a statically linked login service already ripped off their seal of warranty in my opinion, but I'd rather not make a bikeshed out of this. The current /etc/ttys already seemed like an improvement when compared to the old one, where we spent 2 out of 3 entries on commonly unused PTY names. What kind of ratio do you propose? --=20 Ed Schouten WWW: http://80386.nl/ --2ItTUDFNGRP62uHp Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkiwjuEACgkQ52SDGA2eCwVMfQCfW/RW2AomV10eos/j9pq+sLLx OxIAn1PwQ5NfnTo2aFfAHv1TKNFpJ4bh =wIRu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --2ItTUDFNGRP62uHp--