Re: Where is /dev/pts?
On Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 05:13:38PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Yes, I see this:
> [ -d /dev/pts ] || mkdir --mode=755 /dev/pts
> My question still remains:
> Which is the difference between this and /proc? Isn't /dev/pts supposed
> to be present on the base system as /proc already is? In other words: Does
> an empty /dev/pts makes any harm in systems running Linux 2.0.x?
I don't think it matters either way. Unix98 pty's are a feature of glibc 2.1
and not too many folks would be running 2.0.x kernels with glibc 2.1.
FWIW, I ran my (very basic) system without mounting /dev/pts for a few
weeks and nothing seemed to break. I'm not sure what programs actually need
As long as devpts.sh remains in the libc6 package, we have no problems (even
if you include /dev/pts in base-files, devpts.sh will still mount the file
Boot-floppies team needn't be concerned. I notice that dbootstrap writes
an example line in fstab (just in case).