From mats@snowbee.dyns.cx  Tue Sep  2 10:17:54 2003
Return-Path: <mats@snowbee.dyns.cx>
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6836916A4BF
	for <FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org>; Tue,  2 Sep 2003 10:17:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from snowbee.dyns.cx (as13-5-6.n.n.bonet.se [217.215.6.225])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03BCF43FBF
	for <FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org>; Tue,  2 Sep 2003 10:17:53 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from mats@snowbee.dyns.cx)
Received: from pc10.snowbee.foo (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by snowbee.dyns.cx (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h82HHp5H019981;
	Tue, 2 Sep 2003 19:17:51 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from mats@pc10.snowbee.foo)
Received: (from mats@localhost)
	by pc10.snowbee.foo (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id h82HHold019980;
	Tue, 2 Sep 2003 19:17:50 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from mats)
Message-Id: <200309021717.h82HHold019980@pc10.snowbee.foo>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 19:17:50 +0200 (CEST)
From: Mats Peterson <mats@snowbee.dyns.cx>
Reply-To: Mats Peterson <mats@snowbee.dyns.cx>
To: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org
Cc: mats@snowbee.dyns.cx
Subject: Incorrect information in /etc/gettytab
X-Send-Pr-Version: 3.113
X-GNATS-Notify:

>Number:         56325
>Category:       bin
>Synopsis:       Incorrect information in /etc/gettytab
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       non-critical
>Priority:       medium
>Responsible:    yar
>State:          closed
>Quarter:        
>Keywords:       
>Date-Required:  
>Class:          sw-bug
>Submitter-Id:   current-users
>Arrival-Date:   Tue Sep 02 10:20:15 PDT 2003
>Closed-Date:    Tue Sep 16 02:36:37 PDT 2003
>Last-Modified:  Tue Sep 16 02:36:37 PDT 2003
>Originator:     Mats Peterson
>Release:        FreeBSD 4.6.2-RELEASE-p12 i386
>Organization:
None
>Environment:
System: FreeBSD pc10.snowbee.foo 4.6.2-RELEASE-p12 FreeBSD 4.6.2-RELEASE-p12 #0: Sat Aug 30 10:57:24 CEST 2003 mats@pc10.snowbee.foo:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/MYKERNEL i386

>Description:
	In /etc/gettytab, the three lines below are not valid.
	Using the 'np' flag will override any 'ep', 'op' or 'ap' flags
	(have a look at /usr/src/libexec/getty/subr.c).
	I suppose these lines are from some older incarnation of getty.

	#  np:ep:  same as np except inpck.
	#  np:op:  same as np:ep except for parodd (but parodd is overridden).
	#  np:ap:  same as np except istrip.

>How-To-Repeat:
	Use ':np:ep:', ':np:op:' or ':np:ap:' in a gettytab entry.

>Fix:
	Remove the three lines from /etc/gettytab.
>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:

From: Yar Tikhiy <yar@comp.chem.msu.su>
To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Cc: mats@snowbee.dyns.cx, FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: bin/56325: Incorrect information in /etc/gettytab
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 19:47:54 +0400

 On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 08:04:01PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
 > I looked at what the various combinations of parity did when I wrote
 > thos lines in gettytab.  I haven't looked at them recently (i never
 > use anything except np).  Perhaps changing getty to termios canonicalized
 > the parity support.
 
 Indeed, it was rev. 1.6 of subr.c that introduced the new behaviour
 of the parity flags along with using termios instead of the old BSD
 interface to terminals.
 
 I believe that people use just np nowadays, so the question is
 whether the old behaviour of parity flag combinations is worth
 restoring.  How do you think?
 
 -- 
 Yar

From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
To: Yar Tikhiy <yar@comp.chem.msu.su>
Cc: mats@snowbee.dyns.cx, FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: bin/56325: Incorrect information in /etc/gettytab
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 03:14:29 +1000 (EST)

 On Mon, 8 Sep 2003, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
 
 > On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 08:04:01PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
 > > I looked at what the various combinations of parity did when I wrote
 > > thos lines in gettytab.  I haven't looked at them recently (i never
 > > use anything except np).  Perhaps changing getty to termios canonicalized
 > > the parity support.
 >
 > Indeed, it was rev. 1.6 of subr.c that introduced the new behaviour
 > of the parity flags along with using termios instead of the old BSD
 > interface to terminals.
 >
 > I believe that people use just np nowadays, so the question is
 > whether the old behaviour of parity flag combinations is worth
 > restoring.  How do you think?
 
 Not having it is OK with me.  I used just np back when I wrote those
 lines in gettytab :-).
 
 Bruce

From: Yar Tikhiy <yar@freebsd.org>
To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Cc: mats@snowbee.dyns.cx, FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: bin/56325: Incorrect information in /etc/gettytab
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 14:27:48 +0400

 On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 03:14:29AM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
 > >
 > > I believe that people use just np nowadays, so the question is
 > > whether the old behaviour of parity flag combinations is worth
 > > restoring.  How do you think?
 > 
 > Not having it is OK with me.  I used just np back when I wrote those
 > lines in gettytab :-).
 
 As long as nobody has actually needed the old functionality in the
 last 9 years, I'll just match the comment at the top of gettytab
 with the harsh reality of the XXI century :-)
 
 -- 
 Yar

From: Mats Peterson <mats@snowbee.dyns.cx>
To: bde@zeta.org.au, yar@freebsd.org
Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org, mats@snowbee.dyns.cx
Subject: Re: bin/56325: Incorrect information in /etc/gettytab
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 13:12:56 +0200 (CEST)

 > On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 03:14:29AM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
 > > >
 > > > I believe that people use just np nowadays, so the question is
 > > > whether the old behaviour of parity flag combinations is worth
 > > > restoring.  How do you think?
 > > 
 > > Not having it is OK with me.  I used just np back when I wrote those
 > > lines in gettytab :-).
 >
 > As long as nobody has actually needed the old functionality in the
 > last 9 years, I'll just match the comment at the top of gettytab
 > with the harsh reality of the XXI century :-)
 >
 > -- 
 > Yar
 >
 
 It's still nice if it's there for a reason, though.  EVEN if most people
 use no parity nowadays.  I had to look at the source to find out why it
 didn't work as expected.  I guess not everyone is too keen on doing that...
 
 Mats
 

From: Yar Tikhiy <yar@freebsd.org>
To: Mats Peterson <mats@snowbee.dyns.cx>
Cc: bde@zeta.org.au, FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: bin/56325: Incorrect information in /etc/gettytab
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 18:34:32 +0400

 On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 01:12:56PM +0200, Mats Peterson wrote:
 > 
 > It's still nice if it's there for a reason, though.  EVEN if most people
 > use no parity nowadays.  I had to look at the source to find out why it
 > didn't work as expected.  I guess not everyone is too keen on doing that...
 
 I'm not speaking of removing the parity capabilities completely.
 However, I'd rather drop most double combinations of them because
 I can hardly see how serial/terminal hardware would do "-parenb
 inpck" (np:ep:), leave alone "-parenb inpck parodd" (np:op:).  Bruce
 simply documented the present state of getty code when he wrote the
 comment in gettytab 9 years ago.  I believe it's high time to revise
 it.  Perhaps the only combination that makes sense is np:ap: which
 used to set istrip without turning on parity stuff.
 
 -- 
 Yar
State-Changed-From-To: open->patched 
State-Changed-By: yar 
State-Changed-When: Tue Sep 9 08:37:47 PDT 2003 
State-Changed-Why:  
The comment in gettytab(5) has been revised. 


Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-bugs->yar 
Responsible-Changed-By: yar 
Responsible-Changed-When: Tue Sep 9 08:37:47 PDT 2003 
Responsible-Changed-Why:  
I'm taking this one. 

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=56325 

From: mats@snowbee.dyns.cx
To: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org, mats@snowbee.dyns.cx
Cc: mats@snowbee.dyns.cx
Subject: Re: bin/56325: Incorrect information in /etc/gettytab
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 17:55:38 +0200 (CEST)

 > > It's still nice if it's there for a reason, though.  EVEN if most people
 > > use no parity nowadays.  I had to look at the source to find out why it
 > > didn't work as expected.  I guess not everyone is too keen on doing that...
 >
 > I'm not speaking of removing the parity capabilities completely.
 > However, I'd rather drop most double combinations of them because
 > I can hardly see how serial/terminal hardware would do "-parenb
 > inpck" (np:ep:), leave alone "-parenb inpck parodd" (np:op:).  Bruce
 > simply documented the present state of getty code when he wrote the
 > comment in gettytab 9 years ago.  I believe it's high time to revise
 > it.  Perhaps the only combination that makes sense is np:ap: which
 > used to set istrip without turning on parity stuff.
 >
 
 I wasn't referring to the parity when I said "It's still nice if it's
 there for a reason", but to the lines in gettytab, and that it's nice
 if they somehow reflect the functionality in getty.  Sorry for being
 unclear.  They were surely valid in the past, but apparently were
 overlooked when getty was modified later on.
 
 Regards,
 Mats

From: Yar Tikhiy <yar@comp.chem.msu.su>
To: mats@snowbee.dyns.cx
Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: bin/56325: Incorrect information in /etc/gettytab
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 20:10:50 +0400

 On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 09:00:34AM -0700, mats@snowbee.dyns.cx wrote:
 >  
 >  I wasn't referring to the parity when I said "It's still nice if it's
 >  there for a reason", but to the lines in gettytab, and that it's nice
 >  if they somehow reflect the functionality in getty.  Sorry for being
 >  unclear.  They were surely valid in the past, but apparently were
 >  overlooked when getty was modified later on.
 
 I've just revised the lines so they match getty(8).  Would you mind
 taking a glance at the new revision?  Thanks!
 
 -- 
 Yar

From: Mats Peterson <mats@snowbee.dyns.cx>
To: mats@snowbee.dyns.cx, yar@comp.chem.msu.su
Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: bin/56325: Incorrect information in /etc/gettytab
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 18:23:35 +0200 (CEST)

 > On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 09:00:34AM -0700, mats@snowbee.dyns.cx wrote:
 > >  
 > >  I wasn't referring to the parity when I said "It's still nice if it's
 > >  there for a reason", but to the lines in gettytab, and that it's nice
 > >  if they somehow reflect the functionality in getty.  Sorry for being
 > >  unclear.  They were surely valid in the past, but apparently were
 > >  overlooked when getty was modified later on.
 >
 > I've just revised the lines so they match getty(8).  Would you mind
 > taking a glance at the new revision?  Thanks!
 >
 > -- 
 > Yar
 >
 
 Sorry for being ignorant, but where is it?
 
 Mats

From: Yar Tikhiy <yar@FreeBSD.org>
To: Mats Peterson <mats@snowbee.dyns.cx>
Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: bin/56325: Incorrect information in /etc/gettytab
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 20:28:51 +0400

 On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 06:23:35PM +0200, Mats Peterson wrote:
 > >
 > > I've just revised the lines so they match getty(8).  Would you mind
 > > taking a glance at the new revision?  Thanks!
 > 
 > Sorry for being ignorant, but where is it?
 
 For instance, there:
 
 http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/etc/gettytab?rev=HEAD
 
 -- 
 Yar

From: Mats Peterson <mats@snowbee.dyns.cx>
To: mats@snowbee.dyns.cx, yar@FreeBSD.org
Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: bin/56325: Incorrect information in /etc/gettytab
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 18:37:26 +0200 (CEST)

 > On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 06:23:35PM +0200, Mats Peterson wrote:
 > > >
 > > > I've just revised the lines so they match getty(8).  Would you mind
 > > > taking a glance at the new revision?  Thanks!
 > > 
 > > Sorry for being ignorant, but where is it?
 >
 > For instance, there:
 >
 > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/etc/gettytab?rev=HEAD
 >
 > -- 
 > Yar
 >
 
 Looks fine to me:) I'm no authority really, but it matches the internal
 behaviour of getty much better now.
 The most important thing was to get rid of those np:ep, np:op and np:ap
 lines which were totally bogus...
 
 Mats

From: Yar Tikhiy <yar@FreeBSD.org>
To: Mats Peterson <mats@snowbee.dyns.cx>
Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: bin/56325: Incorrect information in /etc/gettytab
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 09:00:16 +0400

 On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 06:37:26PM +0200, Mats Peterson wrote:
 > 
 > Looks fine to me:) I'm no authority really, but it matches the internal
 > behaviour of getty much better now.
 
 Your review is much appreciated.  Thank you!
 In a couple of days I'll submit my change for approval by a Release
 Engineer so it will appear in 4.9-RELEASE, too.
 
 > The most important thing was to get rid of those np:ep, np:op and np:ap
 > lines which were totally bogus...
 
 Yeah, it's exactly what I thought about them :-)
 
 -- 
 Yar

From: Mats Peterson <mats@snowbee.dyns.cx>
To: mats@snowbee.dyns.cx, yar@FreeBSD.org
Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: bin/56325: Incorrect information in /etc/gettytab
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 09:01:33 +0200 (CEST)

 >
 > On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 06:37:26PM +0200, Mats Peterson wrote:
 > > 
 > > Looks fine to me:) I'm no authority really, but it matches the internal
 > > behaviour of getty much better now.
 >
 > Your review is much appreciated.  Thank you!
 > In a couple of days I'll submit my change for approval by a Release
 > Engineer so it will appear in 4.9-RELEASE, too.
 >
 
 Thank you too.
 
 > > The most important thing was to get rid of those np:ep, np:op and np:ap
 > > lines which were totally bogus...
 >
 > Yeah, it's exactly what I thought about them :-)
 >
 > -- 
 > Yar
 >
 
 :)
State-Changed-From-To: patched->closed 
State-Changed-By: yar 
State-Changed-When: Tue Sep 16 02:34:45 PDT 2003 
State-Changed-Why:  
The comment paragraph on parity capabilities in /etc/gettytab 
has been corrected in both active branches. 

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=56325 
>Unformatted:
