From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20220 invoked from network); 11 Mar 2002 19:03:46 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.247.90) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 11 Mar 2002 19:03:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 13118 invoked by alias); 11 Mar 2002 19:03:40 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 16808 Received: (qmail 13105 invoked from network); 11 Mar 2002 19:03:39 -0000 Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 14:02:31 -0500 From: Clint Adams To: Bart Schaefer Cc: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk Subject: Re: Y test failures (zpty) Message-ID: <20020311190231.GA21327@dman.com> References: <20020311053241.GA9027@dman.com> <1020311182942.ZM27214@candle.brasslantern.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1020311182942.ZM27214@candle.brasslantern.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i > It would appear that the get_pty() function is failing. Why that's > happening, I couldn't say. There are two different versions of that > function in zpty.c -- is the wrong one getting used for some reason? The one defined is one with /dev/ptyxx. I'm not entirely certain that this is the wrong one; I have Unix98 ptys in /dev/pts (this is what nearly everything uses), and I have /dev/pty?? as compatibility symlinks to /dev/pty/m[0-9]+. The nodes in /dev/pty are char devices (major 2), which are the traditional BSD-style pty's. > Has the naming convention for pty devices changed? Unix98 ptys showed up as an option quite some time ago, but you used to be able to still get BSD-style pty's if you asked for one. I imagine that something could be broken with the kernel or devfsd. Irrespective of that, I'd think that zsh should do the /dev/ptmx decision at runtime. Would this hurt anything?