On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 03:19, LaMont Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 12:49:11PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote: >> > We can ask, but it has been that way for at least a decade so I'm >> > guessing it's unlikely to be changed now. See this Debian bug from >> > 2001, marked wontfix. >> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=117596 > >> I personally don't know the history of agetty resp. getty. [1] >> But if we want the declare the getty implementation within util-linux as >> sort-of >> the default, being bold and claiming the name "getty" might actually be a >> good idea. > > After a bit more digging: back in the distant past, there was an agetty > package in Debian. Rather than hijacking the name, we renamed agetty in > util-linux. Given that the package was removed from Debian sometime before > 2001, I have no issue with delivering agetty as a hardlink to getty (and > therefore vice-versa). That will remain so for the next eternity. That is, > I have no intention of removing the copy called 'getty', for reasons of not > wanting to have to kill myself after the installed base screams. > > I'll add it now and it should land post-squeeze.
Awesome! Many thanks for your support on this. Kay _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
