From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [IPv6:2620:52:3:1:0:246e:9693:128c]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A1401F5AE for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 09:16:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4142F386182E; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 09:16:41 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 4142F386182E DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1596100601; bh=Oby0hjKOoKvOjTbMg5/cxe9AIENreOhp+hNmf74/ScA=; h=Subject:To:References:Date:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=Li+lwA9D9jtVI+WVOgudb2lU/MC2JqBtP9lx8Ux2dZ8ttfPSlCj+x3fLFgG76gKfR GqJ9C5IHAqRdnA9lxRJIzIGPr15Ni6Ubw5aCazKh1YP1stsqJmMRaGz8T7bhCldJ/3 0YeYWG3KjK9aA06hPAUtrtHSO86R+7BD4ISZA1/c= Received: from mail-ej1-x643.google.com (mail-ej1-x643.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::643]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6050E3858D35 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 09:16:38 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 6050E3858D35 Received: by mail-ej1-x643.google.com with SMTP id d6so13399173ejr.5 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 02:16:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:cc:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Oby0hjKOoKvOjTbMg5/cxe9AIENreOhp+hNmf74/ScA=; b=jaVHvlx+GPseABTSTYzNqgyLD3kFW4H7i6qnjFLXsaljMp1MymL4TKjf2DxjmII6rW 5R9ly7g7q2SZM6YFQT0OG/1u5PAAJz88kryueqd05QRxTN6ISyazLB2Y5L31rbFfZxw7 9/E3vbXHiL6MeVcSVnU3R7PIEiZt4C7cItDdi3J2LTNADLVJKiHMW+SbB4nhmsRqjFGw dWG62xGrRhZ0ijxUDl84fry+XPVRhM8/2E0GzgHYgyFV4XfdreT4s9864TT6BTvSukjz KBwR5SPHBfoJ7GFO3hQE/wA7WZbigKjrcjuR/M3Etkgm/lMQIOAytfQPsi9KagX1pmXD dxlA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532LbjDYlRXmnLsnQyKXrI6E0iLBVqdqXh8SbAn0PPaljhNeznky FBRzVL2+9fVNQqRKCjohIXQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxf80RJBCTo3YL8pkyfJqP9qfuYLcibUUKSvohy5bHGJzGwJGLinmC4WNeloGHttiX/EMjICA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:68da:: with SMTP id y26mr1646546ejr.250.1596100597384; Thu, 30 Jul 2020 02:16:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:a61:3adb:8201:9649:88f:51f8:6a21? ([2001:a61:3adb:8201:9649:88f:51f8:6a21]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w5sm5330591edi.74.2020.07.30.02.16.36 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 30 Jul 2020 02:16:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Replacing "master-slave" terminology for pseudoterminals To: Carlos O'Donell , "libc-alpha@sourceware.org" , linux-man , enh , Zack Weinberg References: <88273c2f-ce21-db54-688d-5bebd4a81ecd@redhat.com> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 11:16:33 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <88273c2f-ce21-db54-688d-5bebd4a81ecd@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: libc-alpha@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Libc-alpha mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: "Michael Kerrisk \(man-pages\) via Libc-alpha" Reply-To: "Michael Kerrisk \(man-pages\)" Cc: Florian Weimer , Linux API , mtk.manpages@gmail.com, Joseph Myers Errors-To: libc-alpha-bounces@sourceware.org Sender: "Libc-alpha" Hello Carlos, Thanks for looking at the patch. On 7/30/20 6:06 AM, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > On 7/29/20 6:39 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: >> As per some discussion on libc-alpha [1], many of us are interested in >> finding a replacement for the problemantic master-slave terminology >> used in the description of pseudoterminals. >> >> Elliot Hughes (enh@) suggested a replacement based on an idea from >> an analogous change in the golang libraries, and I've taken a shot >> at implementing that idea in a branch [2] of man-pages. The affected >> pages are: >> >> man2/ioctl_tty.2 | 23 +++++++++++-------- >> man2/poll.2 | 3 ++- >> man3/getpt.3 | 2 +- >> man3/grantpt.3 | 17 +++++++------- >> man3/openpty.3 | 35 ++++++++++++++++------------ >> man3/posix_openpt.3 | 10 ++++---- >> man3/ptsname.3 | 10 ++++---- >> man3/ttyname.3 | 2 +- >> man3/unlockpt.3 | 11 +++++---- >> man4/pts.4 | 26 ++++++++++++--------- >> man7/pty.7 | 65 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------- >> 11 files changed, 112 insertions(+), 92 deletions(-) >> >> Eventually, I think we should take this discussion also to the >> mailing list, and also see if we can raise this within the POSIX >> committee. But let's see if we can fist off find some terminology >> that seems agreeable. >> >> I've added the full patch below. I am myself still reflecting on >> the change. At times, the language feels a little clunky, but overall >> I don't hate the result. I welcome comments from all, and especially >> I'd be interested in feedback from Elliot and from Zack, who was >> planning to work on this issue in the glibc documentation. > > Overall I agree with Elliott that the changes are positive and make the > pages clearer. In some case I find the verbosity slightly longer than > I would want for reading in English. I know what you mean. One reason for that verbosity is the need to clearly distinguish "pseudoterminal device/end" from "pseudoterminal device pair". It's hard to avoid being wordy there. > Since I have an EE background I also > find multiplexer more natural, but I got lost down the "agent noun from > a verb" rabbit hole and I agree with either position. I was unsure of which to use. It seems both are used, but some quick checking just now shows that "multiplexer" is the rather more widespread spelling, so I've changed it. Thanks, Michael -- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/