On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 08:47:47PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: > > We will not implement those ioctls, and they will certainly not be > > implemented in the terminal server (or magic for that matter). > > > > It's also unrelated to a console server. > > > > The issue is between the vga console client that shares the display and > > input devices with the X server. That console client must have a protocol > > that allows cooperative console switching > > why can't it be the standard protocol? magic could forward its ioctl'ed > requests to the console client?
"Standard" is a bit far stretched. We are talking about a solution that is shared by BSD and Linux, I think, which are both monolithic Unix like kernels, and thus have a different understanding about how things should work. Of course it could be the same protocol, but it would be silly. You would insert a man in the middle which has really nothing to do with this whatsoever. > > The protocol will be just as we see it convenient and useful, and not be > > tied to the ioctl interface. The corresponding code in XFree86 must be > > ported (rewritten). > > the Xfree86 side it's not that much of a hassle, just to find a replacement > for VT_ACTIVATE #ifndef VT_ACTIVATE. what is your proposed protocol? If I had one you would find it in the savannah task item about it. > > This bug is a will-not-fix or a non-bug. See also the savannah task > > database, I am sure I have one open for that. > > ok, but then we need a new protocol to tell the console client about > terminal switches. That's what I keep saying :) It needs to be cooperative, but it can be simple. It also can assume trust between the communication partners (ie proper behaviour). Thanks, Marcus -- `Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' GNU http://www.gnu.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] Marcus Brinkmann The Hurd http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de/ _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
