From mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Tue Aug 30 04:20:31 2005 X-Original-To: fnaumann@mail.boerde.de Delivered-To: fnaumann@mail.boerde.de Subject: [MiNT] Mint PTY From: Mark Duckworth To: Mint List Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 22:14:56 -0400 Message-Id: <1125368096.20002.12.camel@mduckworth.phillypark.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 (2.2.3-2.1.fc4.nr) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Errors-To: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi X-original-sender: mduckworth@atari-source.com Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-Id: X-List-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at relay.boerde.de X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on relay.boerde.de X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.0 tagged_above=-50.5 required=7.0 tests=AWL, BAYES_00 X-Spam-Level: Hello guys, Now that I got binutils working (really really REALLY seems to be working right), we need to fix expect which apparently has never worked. Expect is needed for the gcc/g++/binutils testsuites and there's no way around that. A very basic test of expect working properly is: expect -c "spawn ls" If you try this on your system it will most certainly fail, giving an error about no available file descriptors. The test fd is "/" which probably just doesn't work on freemint and this error message is misleading. The problem is that it can't open a pty. Looking at the structure, it appears that expect is mistakenly using unicos Pty's when it should be using BSD pty's. After making this adjustment it still fails. What I observed is that the master seems to be created fine, /dev/ttyp* but not the slave ptys. Under linux the masters are /dev/pts/* and the slaves seem to be /dev/tty*, but under mint it's a bit different, probably more similar to BSD since that's MiNT's heritage. The only thing I can find about MiNT is that "some people want to use sln u:/pipe/pty.A u:/dev/pty.A ... and so on for a couple pty's. However, looking under pipe on recent kernels these pty.* nodes don't seem to exist. Is this correct or is something broken? Thanks, Mark