On Wed, 10.11.10 21:33, Bernie Innocenti (bernie@xxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > Hello Petr, > > I ended up being the owner of mingetty by chance, because I used to > maintain it in the OLPC collection and the previous maintainer released > the package. Do we really want to keep mingetty around? We discussed this a couple of times in the systemd context with people form various distros. In the interest of standardizing things across distros we would like to get all distros use the same getty implementation. Now, as it turns out contrary to what the name suggests mingetty actually uses a little bit more runtime memory than agetty, even though mingetty takes up a handful of bytes less disk space. (That said, the difference in memory and disk space is tiny enough to don't matter the tiniest bit on modern machines) Now, agetty is actively maintained inside u-l-ng, and used by most distros, except Fedora and Suse. Since u-l-ng is a core part of every Linux system and the mingetty pkg definitely not we started to work on making everybody use agetty and drop mingetty from the standard install everywhere. That way most distros would only have to install one getty implementation, and can use it for both serial consoles and VCs. Also it would use less disk space (since one getty binary takes less space than two, even if the one we keep is sligtly larger then the other one we remove), and less runtime memory. systemd git now ships with a default config which makes use of agetty, not mingetty -- on all distros. You apparently see value in keeping two almost identical getty implementations around. Can you elaborate why? Is there any feature missing in agetty that mingetty has? Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
