[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [tytso@mit.edu: Re: ttyS* lockfiles]

Bernd Eckenfels() {
    attached is a mail from the fhs discussion, where Ted is talking about how
    slow new distributions are accepting the changes for serial devices in 2.2
    kernels. This should be a goal for the next stable release.
    ----- Forwarded message from "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu> -----
    Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 23:05:15 -0400 (EDT)
    From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
    Subject: Re: ttyS* lockfiles
       How much longer will the cua devices last?
    I don't know.  Unfortunately none of the big distributions took the hint
    when Linux 2.2 came out.  They're still using the cua devices, and the
    FSF shellutils maintainer is lame and *still* hasn't taken the stty
    patches I sent him almost two years ago now.
    So unfortunately it may be a long time before we can get rid of the cua
    devices.  What I'll probably do is remove interlocking functionality of
    the cua/ttyS devices, and leave the /dev/cua as a way of accessing the
    device without having to open the device with the O_NBLOCK flag.
    							- Ted
    ----- End forwarded message -----

>From what i can recall i have never used a cua* device on debian. All the
defaults and examples were already using the ttyS* devices.

   ____  Justin N. Penney               __      _    
  / __/__  ___ ____  / /_____ ___  ___ / /____ (_)__ 
 _\ \/ _ \/ _ `/ _ \/  '_/ -_) _ \(_-</ __/ -_) / _ \
/___/ .__/\_,_/_//_/_/\_\\__/_//_/___/\__/\__/_/_//_/@mindless.com
   /_/ http://spank.home.dhs.org/ http://egb.home.dhs.org/

Reply to: