On Sun, 15 Aug 1999, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:

> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Narvi 
> >
> >On Sun, 15 Aug 1999, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >> 
> >> 7.      [medium] The current naming for ptys doesn't scale that
> >>    well.  Changing it to ttyp%d / pty%d would probably be a
> >>    good idea in the long run, but the ramifications are
> >>    relatively widespread (think: "ports")
> >> 
> >
> >Which while being scaleable in one direction (you can have things like 
> >/dev/pty1234567890) as it is essentialy open ended, on the other hand:
> >
> >     a) pty/tty names are now variable length
> >     b) the name length advances quite quickly as we add more ptys
> >     c) it is a totaly new "look and feel"
> >
> >So why not instead:
> I think that is needlessly complicated.

It's a direct extension to the present tty naming scheme.

> I think tty%05d would solve all but the third of your objections,

The first was more a question of radix, implying that 10 might be too low. 

IMHO base-32 has many good qualities to itself. It makes retaining the
policy of creating ptys in increments of 32 easy, the name space does not
grow as fast (ptyxxxx allows for more ptys than pty%06d) and it is not
much different from the naming system.

> and quite frankly the "we've never done that before" argument
> works badly with me.

It's more the argument of "why do it *significantly* differently from

> --
> Poul-Henning Kamp             FreeBSD coreteam member
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]               "Real hackers run -current on their laptop."
> FreeBSD -- It will take a long time before progress goes too far!


        There is no love, no good, no happiness and no future -
        all these are just illusions.

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to