Xref: utzoo comp.unix.xenix:3225 comp.unix.microport:1484
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!husc6!mailrus!b-tech!zeeff
From: zeeff@b-tech.UUCP (Jon Zeeff)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix,comp.unix.microport
Subject: Re: Buggy UUCP (was: Re: Bell Tech 386 SysVr3)
Message-ID: <4749@b-tech.UUCP>
Date: 4 Sep 88 14:06:07 GMT
References: <25145@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <465@sp7040.UUCP> <11643@steinmetz.ge.com> <394@marob.MASA.COM> <173@ispi.UUCP>
Reply-To: zeeff@b-tech.UUCP (Jon Zeeff)
Organization: Branch Technology Ann Arbor, MI
Lines: 22

In article <173@ispi.UUCP> jbayer@ispi.UUCP (id for use with uunet/usenet) writes:
>	Xenix (and I suspect many other Unixs) is stupid.  It doesn't
>know that tty1a and tty1A both refer to the same device.  If you look at
>the spool directory you will see the names of the lock files include
>the device name.  Because of the case dependancy uucico will not realize
>that they both are refering to the same device.

One solution is to use the same name (tty1a), but put one somewhere 
other than /dev (let's say /dev/x/tty1a).  Programs can them refer to 
/dev/tty1a or /dev/x/tty1a, depending on what they want to do.  The 
lock files don't store the directory name, so it works fine.  Note that
this same trick solves some permission problems.  Getty and uucp reset the
permissions on a line that you might want to be r/w group staff.  Creating
another device with the same name works fine.





-- 
Jon Zeeff      			Branch Technology,
umix!b-tech!zeeff  		zeeff%b-tech.uucp@umix.cc.umich.edu