On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 00:57, Brian May wrote: > On Sat, Jul 20, 2002 at 11:00:55AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote: > > That would work --- otherwise it's time to tweak the source on one or > > both. Looks to me like mgetty's at fault here. > > > > Your best bet is to submit a bug against mgetty. > > However, is it really mgetty at "fault" here? > > Minicom does it the same way... > > (the way pppd does things does look nicer though...) Well, given that if one imagines that we have devices of called: /dev/aaa/0 and /dev/bbb/0 the mgetty approach will break, whereas the pppd one will not. That's good enough for me --- needs to be stated in policy too though, so if it's not already specified, a bug against debian-policy is also probably in order. Cheers, Phil. -- Say no to software patents! http://petition.eurolinux.org/ |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] http://www.hands.com/ |-| HANDS.COM Ltd. http://www.uk.debian.org/ |(| 10 Onslow Gardens, South Woodford, London E18 1NE ENGLAND
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part