On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 10:17:45AM -0800, Sean McNeil wrote: > On Fri, 2005-03-04 at 09:44 -0500, Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 07:39:09PM -0600, Richard Todd wrote: > > > I managed to work around the immediate problem and stop my script from > > > complaining by bludgeoning the p5-IO-Tty Makefile.PL with a blunt instrument > > > to make it think this system didn't support grantpt() etc. (causing the module > > > to fall back to other methods of dealing with ptys). The proper fix for > > > grantpt.c is less clear, though. Changing it to figure the proper pty > > > major number by stating a known pty node (say, /dev/ptyp0) would work, but from > > > what I understand that's going to break when phk commits his forthcoming > > > patch which will make the whole concept of major numbers go away. Any ideas? > > > > Just remove all knowledge of device majors/minors from the module. Why > > should it care? All it could possibly do with that information is > > sanity-check that the device name (that it already knows how to generate) > > isn't somehow replaced with something else. > > This isn't a module, this is a libc function. It seems like you have > some ideas how this can be fixed, so does that mean you are volunteering > to do so? Or does someone else already claim responsibility for this > part of libc? > > You are correct about it being a sanity check. The comment makes that > clear. Worst case it could just be pulled out: > > /* > * ISPTM(x) returns 0 for struct stat x if x is not a pty master. > * The bounds checking may be unnecessary but it does eliminate doubt. > */ > ... Whether you want to call libc a module or not, sure, I'll fix it ;) It indeed should be pulled out. -- Brian Fundakowski Feldman \'[ FreeBSD ]''''''''''\ <> green_at_FreeBSD.org \ The Power to Serve! \ Opinions expressed are my own. \,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,\Received on Fri Mar 04 2005 - 19:10:30 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:29 UTC