On Wednesday 08 April 2009 13:25:39 Bernd Walter wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 08:10:03AM +0200, Ed Schouten wrote:
> > * Paul Schenkeveld <fb-hack...@psconsult.nl> wrote:
> > > Or change 'pts' to, for example, 'pt' so without changing utmp and
> > > related stuff we'll have space for a four digit pty number.
> >
> > I've noticed lots of apps already misbehave because of the pty(4) ->
> > pts(4) migration. I guess using a new naming scheme would totally break
> > stuff. There are lots of apps that do things like:
> >
> > if (strncmp(tty, "tty", 3) != 0 && strncmp(tty, "pts/", 4) != 0)
> > printf("Not a valid pseudo-terminal!\n");
> >
> > But those are just workarounds. Our utmp format is broken anyway. It's
> > not just UT_LINESIZE that's too small. I think we received many
> > complaints from people who want to increase UT_HOSTSIZE as well.
>
> Well, UT_HOSTSIZE can't hold a full sized IPv6 address.
RFC 1924 (still needs four more, but avoids ridiculously large UT_HOSTSIZE ;)
--
/"\ Best regards, | mla...@freebsd.org
\ / Max Laier | ICQ #67774661
X http://pf4freebsd.love2party.net/ | mla...@efnet
/ \ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Against HTML Mail and News
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
