Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 07:40:19 -0700 (PDT) From: Yar Tikhiy <yar@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: bin/56325: Incorrect information in /etc/gettytab Message-ID: <200309091440.h89EeJe5050943@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: Yar Tikhiy <yar@freebsd.org> To: Mats Peterson <mats@snowbee.dyns.cx> Cc: bde@zeta.org.au, FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org Subject: Re: bin/56325: Incorrect information in /etc/gettytab Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 18:34:32 +0400 On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 01:12:56PM +0200, Mats Peterson wrote: > > It's still nice if it's there for a reason, though. EVEN if most people > use no parity nowadays. I had to look at the source to find out why it > didn't work as expected. I guess not everyone is too keen on doing that... I'm not speaking of removing the parity capabilities completely. However, I'd rather drop most double combinations of them because I can hardly see how serial/terminal hardware would do "-parenb inpck" (np:ep:), leave alone "-parenb inpck parodd" (np:op:). Bruce simply documented the present state of getty code when he wrote the comment in gettytab 9 years ago. I believe it's high time to revise it. Perhaps the only combination that makes sense is np:ap: which used to set istrip without turning on parity stuff. -- Yar
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200309091440.h89EeJe5050943>