Darren J Moffat wrote:
> 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 ?
The current plan is April next year if everything goes well.
> 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
> Ah okay, either way why aren't we using a subdirectory ?
>>>IIRC the /dev/tty* devices are SunOS 4.x compatibility
>>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/.
Looks reasonable. Okey, we'll change to /dev/vt/# if there's