Re: HEADS UP: pts code committed

On Saturday, 28th January 2006, Robert Watson wrote:

>You are right, that is what it does.  This is actually an intentional design 
>choice to match the behavior in Solaris, which also names them /dev/ptyp*. 
>Well, strictly speaking, those are just symlinks into /devices, but it comes 
>to much the same thing.  You are probably right, though -- naming them 
>/dev/pty/* would make more sense, and won't affect the libc API.

I had a quick look on a Solaris 8 machine and found only legacy pty devices
in /dev.  In /devices, they lump pts and pty nodes into /devices/pseudo
with a lot of other stuff.  Very messy.  So I don't think the new FreeBSD
/dev/ptynnn behaviour is the same as Solaris after all.  I checked a Fedora
Core 4 box too, and it doesn't put the pty's in /dev at all.  At least in
all implementations the important part (/dev/pts/nnn) is the same.

Anyway, I can't find anything that depends on the naming for the master and
it would make /dev tidier to bury pty's in a subdirectory.  Shall we add
that one missing '/'?  The code would then match the comments. :-)

Alternatively, the other implementations seem to get by without putting
them in the tree at all.  Do we need them?

Stephen.