[Bug 999] New: Problem with the /dev/ptmx file

[Bug 999] New: Problem with the /dev/ptmx file

[Martin J. Bligh]

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...

Re: [Bug 999] New: Problem with the /dev/ptmx file

[Christoph Hellwig]

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.

Re: [Bug 999] New: Problem with the /dev/ptmx file

[Martin J. Bligh]

> 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.

Re: [Bug 999] New: Problem with the /dev/ptmx file

[Sean Estabrooks]

> 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

Re: [Bug 999] New: Problem with the /dev/ptmx file

[Nick Moffitt]

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!

Re: [Bug 999] New: Problem with the /dev/ptmx file

[Dave Barry]

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

Re: [Bug 999] New: Problem with the /dev/ptmx file

[Christoph Hellwig]

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.

[Bug 999] New: Problem with the /dev/ptmx file

[Martin J. Bligh]

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...