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

Re: /dev/console wrong on upgraded systems (2.0 -> 2.1)



"Ralf G. R. Bergs" wrote:
  >Hi,
  >
  >I discovered that on ALL my systems that originally were Debian 2.0 and have
      > 
  >been upgraded to Debian 2.1 /dev/console is wrong. It's a link to /dev/tty0 
  >instead of a device special file (mknod -m 622 /dev/console c 5 1).
  >
  >Can anyone pls. check whether this is the case with "native" 2.1 systems? 
  >Anyone know who to inform in case the bug is also present in 2.1?
 
This is the relevant bit of /dev/MAKEDEV (makedev package):

  console)  
                major=`Major vcs`       # not fatal
                makedev tty0 c 4 0 $cons
                # console  
                #       new kernels need a device, old ones a symlink... sigh
                kern_rev1=`uname -r | awk -F'.' '{print $1}'`
                kern_rev2=`uname -r | awk -F'.' '{print $2}'`
                if [ $kern_rev1 -gt 2 ]
                then
                        makedev console c 5 1 $cons
                else
                        if [ $kern_rev1 -eq 2 -a $kern_rev2 -ge 1 ]
                        then
                                makedev console c 5 1 $cons
                        else
                                symlink console tty0
                        fi
                fi

Therefore, if your kernel is 2.1 or greater, you can delete the console
symlink and run `MAKEDEV console' to create a new console device.


Since 2.1 (slink) ships with kernel 2.0.3x, the symlink is correct for
it.  Perhaps the makedev package should contain something to look at the
kernel version and upgrade automatically?
-- 
Oliver Elphick                                Oliver.Elphick@lfix.co.uk
Isle of Wight                              http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
               PGP key from public servers; key ID 32B8FAA1
                 ========================================
     "Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors 
      through him that loved us."    Romans 8:37 



Reply to: