* [Bug 999] New: Problem with the /dev/ptmx file
@ 2003-07-28 19:39 Martin J. Bligh
2003-07-28 19:55 ` Christoph Hellwig
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Martin J. Bligh @ 2003-07-28 19:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
http://bugme.osdl.org/show_bug.cgi?id=999
Summary: Problem with the /dev/ptmx file
Kernel Version: 2.6.0-test2
Status: NEW
Severity: high
Owner: bugme-janitors@lists.osdl.org
Submitter: areversat@tuxfamily.org
CC: areversat@tuxfamily.org
Distribution: Gentoo GNU/Linux
Hardware Environment: P4 2.0Ghz 512 mo ram, Ati Radeon 9000 Mobility
Software Environment: Linux 2.6.0-test2
Problem Description:
When i want to open an Eterm or an xterm (whatever until it uses a virtual
terminal) it fails saying granpt(4) failed.
I've traced the program and it seems that it calls /dev/ptmx well but that ptmx
doesn't create the right entry in /dev/pts.
Note : I don't have /dev/pts support in my kernel but it works with a 2.4 like
that... And i also tried with it compiled in and it didn't work either.
Steps to reproduce:
For me you only have to open something using a virtual terminal.
It may be a configuration problem but i searched and didn't find where it was...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* Re: [Bug 999] New: Problem with the /dev/ptmx file
2003-07-28 19:39 [Bug 999] New: Problem with the /dev/ptmx file Martin J. Bligh
@ 2003-07-28 19:55 ` Christoph Hellwig
2003-07-28 20:04 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-07-28 20:09 ` Sean Estabrooks
0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2003-07-28 19:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Martin J. Bligh; +Cc: linux-kernel
He needs to compile in and use devpts. But if he insists in the
crappy bugzilla interface instead of lkml I won't tell him.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bug 999] New: Problem with the /dev/ptmx file
2003-07-28 19:55 ` Christoph Hellwig
@ 2003-07-28 20:04 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-07-28 20:09 ` Sean Estabrooks
1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Martin J. Bligh @ 2003-07-28 20:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Christoph Hellwig; +Cc: linux-kernel
> He needs to compile in and use devpts. But if he insists in the
> crappy bugzilla interface instead of lkml I won't tell him.
<shrug> Whatever.
Soon it'll all be integrated anyway, so you can just send email back
to the lkml email, and it'll just cc bugzilla.
M.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bug 999] New: Problem with the /dev/ptmx file
2003-07-28 19:55 ` Christoph Hellwig
2003-07-28 20:04 ` Martin J. Bligh
@ 2003-07-28 20:09 ` Sean Estabrooks
2003-07-28 20:50 ` Nick Moffitt
` (2 more replies)
1 sibling, 3 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Sean Estabrooks @ 2003-07-28 20:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Christoph Hellwig; +Cc: linux-kernel
> He needs to compile in and use devpts. But if he insists in the
> crappy bugzilla interface instead of lkml I won't tell him.
>
I noticed that it was already solved by 10:30am so i'm not
sure why this is just hitting the list now.
What's your objection to bugzilla? It's not perfect but it
does seem better than the list alone to track a bug.
Cheers,
Sean
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* Re: [Bug 999] New: Problem with the /dev/ptmx file
2003-07-28 20:09 ` Sean Estabrooks
@ 2003-07-28 20:50 ` Nick Moffitt
2003-07-28 20:52 ` Dave Barry
2003-07-29 9:49 ` Christoph Hellwig
2 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Nick Moffitt @ 2003-07-28 20:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sean Estabrooks; +Cc: Christoph Hellwig, linux-kernel
begin Sean Estabrooks quotation:
> > But if he insists in the crappy bugzilla interface instead of lkml
> > I won't tell him.
[...]
> What's your objection to bugzilla? It's not perfect but it does
> seem better than the list alone to track a bug.
http://bugs.xiph.org/show_bug.cgi?id=245
Bug systems should make it easy to file, and quick to triage. The
costs for entering a new bug should be low. Forcing people to set up
user accounts when NO BUGS WILL EVER BE ASSIGNED TO THEM is just poor
design.
Bugzilla is a relic of a system where all the users (including
testers) are employees, and are assumed to have credentials in the
system already. It does not handle well the zillions of casual bug
detections by end users. If you've got an in-house QA department, it
may suit them just fine. Just don't expect every net.random to start
using it and not kvetch gargargar at you when the warts show through.
Also, the BACK BUTTON for krissakes!
--
end
Support your droogs!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* Re: [Bug 999] New: Problem with the /dev/ptmx file
2003-07-28 20:09 ` Sean Estabrooks
2003-07-28 20:50 ` Nick Moffitt
@ 2003-07-28 20:52 ` Dave Barry
2003-07-29 9:49 ` Christoph Hellwig
2 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Dave Barry @ 2003-07-28 20:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Quothe Sean Estabrooks <seanlkml@rogers.com>, on Mon, Jul 28, 2003:
> What's your objection to bugzilla? It's not perfect but it
> does seem better than the list alone to track a bug.
http://bugs.xiph.org/show_bug.cgi?id=245
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bug 999] New: Problem with the /dev/ptmx file
2003-07-28 20:09 ` Sean Estabrooks
2003-07-28 20:50 ` Nick Moffitt
2003-07-28 20:52 ` Dave Barry
@ 2003-07-29 9:49 ` Christoph Hellwig
2 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2003-07-29 9:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sean Estabrooks; +Cc: linux-kernel
On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 04:09:09PM -0400, Sean Estabrooks wrote:
> What's your objection to bugzilla? It's not perfect but it
> does seem better than the list alone to track a bug.
I can't use it easily with a mail or news client.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Bug 999] New: Problem with the /dev/ptmx file
@ 2003-07-28 19:40 Martin J. Bligh
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Martin J. Bligh @ 2003-07-28 19:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
http://bugme.osdl.org/show_bug.cgi?id=999
Summary: Problem with the /dev/ptmx file
Kernel Version: 2.6.0-test2
Status: NEW
Severity: high
Owner: bugme-janitors@lists.osdl.org
Submitter: areversat@tuxfamily.org
CC: areversat@tuxfamily.org
Distribution: Gentoo GNU/Linux
Hardware Environment: P4 2.0Ghz 512 mo ram, Ati Radeon 9000 Mobility
Software Environment: Linux 2.6.0-test2
Problem Description:
When i want to open an Eterm or an xterm (whatever until it uses a virtual
terminal) it fails saying granpt(4) failed.
I've traced the program and it seems that it calls /dev/ptmx well but that ptmx
doesn't create the right entry in /dev/pts.
Note : I don't have /dev/pts support in my kernel but it works with a 2.4 like
that... And i also tried with it compiled in and it didn't work either.
Steps to reproduce:
For me you only have to open something using a virtual terminal.
It may be a configuration problem but i searched and didn't find where it was...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-07-29 9:49 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-07-28 19:39 [Bug 999] New: Problem with the /dev/ptmx file Martin J. Bligh
2003-07-28 19:55 ` Christoph Hellwig
2003-07-28 20:04 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-07-28 20:09 ` Sean Estabrooks
2003-07-28 20:50 ` Nick Moffitt
2003-07-28 20:52 ` Dave Barry
2003-07-29 9:49 ` Christoph Hellwig
2003-07-28 19:40 Martin J. Bligh
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).