On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 11:48:51AM +0100, Martin Husemann wrote: > On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 11:39:44AM +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > > > No, you should not randomly add the expensive ptyfs code to INSTALL > > > kernels > > > you can not test yourself. Everything else above is fine, as long as > > > sysinst > > > is silent on ptyfs failure when the compat ipty nodes are available. > > > > Huh? I fully agree with Christos that we *should* move to ptyfs. As > > such, problems mounting it should *not* be silent. > > What is so unclear about "INSTALL kernels you can not test yourself" ?
That's why he said he will keep COMPAT_BSDPTY for now. > And if for some reason the INSTALL kernel in question did NOT choose to > include ptyfs, but the device setup steff properly creates the old style > pty nodes, complaining about anything would be extremely stupid. While the installation will still work, it also allows a report of the problem. So that after some time, the legacy compat *can* be removed. Joerg
