In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bernd Walter writes: >On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 03:15:49PM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bernd Walter writes: >> >The /dev/fd content looks strange: >> >[160]cicely9# ls -al /dev/fd/ >> >total 33 >> >dr-xr-xr-x 2 root wheel 512 Mar 6 16:59 . >> >dr-xr-xr-x 5 root wheel 512 Mar 6 17:00 .. >> >crw--w---- 1 ticso tty 5, 1 Mar 14 14:50 0 >> >crw--w---- 1 ticso tty 5, 1 Mar 14 14:50 1 >> >crw--w---- 1 ticso tty 5, 1 Mar 14 14:50 2 >> >d-w------- 1 root wheel 512 Feb 28 15:20 3 >> >d--------- 1 root wheel 512 Mar 6 16:59 4 >> >> What is strange about it ? > >After carefully rethinking - nothing.
That's why I'm against fdescfs and /dev/fd in principle: They are neither intuitive nor logical. >I'd expected to see devnodes like we have without fdescfs and was >surprised by the directories. >I never used fdescfs before and needed /dev/fd/3 for a shell script. >The script does not work with fdescfs, but of course this could be >for a completly different reason. You cannot access /dev/fd/3 until file desc #3 is actually open so the order of arguments (and bugs in the shell) is important. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
