christos@ wrote: > On Mar 16, 3:59am, tsut...@ceres.dti.ne.jp (Izumi Tsutsui) wrote: > -- Subject: Re: CVS commit: src/distrib/common/bootimage > > | > You are right, but it makes it cheaper for us to maintain things > | > in the long run and improves consistency and robustness. > | > | IMO we should rather focus on marketing than consistency for developers... > > Can you please expand? I don't understand how marketing helps existing > developers.
No user, no feedback? > | > I don't think that we are going to be getting new users from the > | > sun2 or sun3 ports... And even if we do, these are the "expert" > | > users who will help us debug the problem. > | > | You should re-read PRs. There were much more ports that failed on 6.0. > > I just see the following having ipty still. Either many more are broken > and are not used by anyone, or they work: > > etc.hp300/MAKEDEV.conf: makedev ipty > etc.i386/MAKEDEV.conf: makedev ipty > etc.landisk/MAKEDEV.conf: makedev ipty > etc.luna68k/MAKEDEV.conf: makedev ipty ttya > etc.sbmips/MAKEDEV.conf: makedev ipty > etc.sgimips/MAKEDEV.conf: makedev ipty > etc.vax/MAKEDEV.conf: makedev std bpf md0 ipty mt0 st0 rd0 rd1 dz0 dl0 dhu0 For example, most (all?) other ports still have opty. You also have to check MAKEDEVTARGETS= in Makefiles under src/distrib. That was the reason why we failed before. > | In pre-6.0 days, we tried to fix all installation MAKEDEV targets, > | but actually it failed. "It's easier said than done." > > I agree, but it can be done. Then I asked not only the goal but also actual procedure how to avoid possible fallout. Everything can be done, but we are far from the perfect. My vote is to keep compat code for now and just try mount(2) ptyfs when openpty(3) failed for better migration, as I wrote in the PR. Anyway, I think our discussion is over and we need votes from others. --- Izumi Tsutsui
