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:

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

Reply via email to