On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 12:43:53PM +0100, Max Laier wrote: > On Wednesday 08 April 2009 13:25:39 Bernd Walter wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 08:10:03AM +0200, Ed Schouten wrote: > > > * Paul Schenkeveld <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Or change 'pts' to, for example, 'pt' so without changing utmp and > > > > related stuff we'll have space for a four digit pty number. > > > > > > I've noticed lots of apps already misbehave because of the pty(4) -> > > > pts(4) migration. I guess using a new naming scheme would totally break > > > stuff. There are lots of apps that do things like: > > > > > > if (strncmp(tty, "tty", 3) != 0 && strncmp(tty, "pts/", 4) != 0) > > > printf("Not a valid pseudo-terminal!\n"); > > > > > > But those are just workarounds. Our utmp format is broken anyway. It's > > > not just UT_LINESIZE that's too small. I think we received many > > > complaints from people who want to increase UT_HOSTSIZE as well. > > > > Well, UT_HOSTSIZE can't hold a full sized IPv6 address. > > RFC 1924 (still needs four more, but avoids ridiculously large UT_HOSTSIZE ;)
It doesn't handle scope information ;-) -- B.Walter <[email protected]> http://www.bwct.de Modbus/TCP Ethernet I/O Baugruppen, ARM basierte FreeBSD Rechner uvm. _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
