Riny Qian wrote: > What if we do extend /dev/console meaning to include > /dev/console and all /dev/vt# devices in this case, > and will do that fix in later case? Is there any impact?
There could be but it depends on who the future case is done. I would rather not overload the string "/dev/console" to mean /dev/console and any /dev/vt#. What is your timescale for integration of this project ? Maybe I can at least get a design for fixing this area of Solaris ARC approved before your case is approved. ARC can then decided if it is important that you depend on it or not. >> Which brings up another question why are we naming the >> device /dev/vt# when Linux is naming them /dev/vc/# ? >> Any reason to be different here ? >> > > No, Linux is using /dev/tty#. (/dev/vc/# is for some > other purposes.) Ah okay, either way why aren't we using a subdirectory ? >> IIRC the /dev/tty* devices are SunOS 4.x compatibility >> names only. >> > > We thought /dev/vt# would be compatible with Linux, and > is simpler than /dev/vc/#. But you said above Linux is using /dev/tty# so /dev/vt# is not compatible with Linux. I also don't see how /dev/vt# is simpler than /dev/vc/# or /dev/vt/#, and simpler for whom ? Since Solaris already uses /dev/pts/ and /dev/term I think this project really should use one of the following: /dev/vc/# /dev/vt/# /dev/vterm/# /dev/term/vt# I have no strong preference for any of those but I do have a strong preference for using a subdir rather than dropping the new devices directly in /dev/. -- Darren J Moffat