Re: RFC: Remove pty(4)

I've recently created a port for linux-sublime and some of the packages users might add to sublime require loading pty. I haven't read the full thread so I'm not sure what would actually be removed but If there no reason for it I don't see why waste the time on such a task.
is there for example any security concern about using the pty driver?

thanks 

On 27 November 2014 12:41:56 WET, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk_at_phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:
>--------
>In message <20141127095229.GO17068_at_kib.kiev.ua>, Konstantin Belousov
>writes:
>
>>On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 04:41:27PM -0800, Davide Italiano wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:37 PM, John Baldwin <jhb_at_freebsd.org>
>wrote:
>>> > On Wednesday, August 20, 2014 11:00:14 AM Davide Italiano wrote:
>>> >> One of my personal goals for 11 is to get rid of cloning
>mechanism
>>> >> entirely, and pty(4) is one of the few in-kernel drivers still
>relying
>>> >> on such mechanism.
>>Why this is good thing to do ?
>
>I must have missed this detail back in august.
>
>I checked my archive of incoming email and I couldn't find any
>reason or argument for removing dev_clone mechanism, and I would
>very much object to its removal, unless a very compelling reason
>exists ?
>
>I'll admit that the name is slightly misleading, it is really
>a "dev_ondemand" facility which can also be used for cloning,
>and because all the initial uses were cloning it got that name.
>
>(I have no soft feelings for the pty driver)
>
>-- 
>Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
>phk_at_FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
>FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
>Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by
>incompetence.
>_______________________________________________
>freebsd-current_at_freebsd.org mailing list
>http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
>To unsubscribe, send any mail to
>"freebsd-current-unsubscribe_at_freebsd.org"

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.