--- configure.in.orig	Sun Jun 27 22:00:42 1999
+++ configure.in	Sun Jun 27 22:02:45 1999
@@ -783,17 +783,18 @@
 fi
 
 AC_MSG_CHECKING([for SVR4 style pty allocation])
-if test -r /dev/ptmx -a "x$svr4_ptys_broken" = x ; then
-  AC_MSG_RESULT(yes)
-  AC_DEFINE(HAVE_PTMX)
-  # aargg. Some systems need libpt.a to use /dev/ptmx
-  AC_CHECK_FUNC(ptsname, , LIBS="${LIBS} -lpt")
-  # I've never seen Tcl or Tk include -lpt so don't bother with explicit test
-  AC_CHECK_FUNC(ptsname, , EXP_AND_TCL_LIBS="${EXP_AND_TCL_LIBS} -lpt")
-  AC_CHECK_FUNC(ptsname, , EXP_AND_TK_LIBS="${EXP_AND_TK_LIBS} -lpt")
-else
-  AC_MSG_RESULT(no)
-fi
+#if test -r /dev/ptmx -a "x$svr4_ptys_broken" = x ; then
+  #AC_MSG_RESULT(yes)
+  #AC_DEFINE(HAVE_PTMX)
+  ## aargg. Some systems need libpt.a to use /dev/ptmx
+  #AC_CHECK_FUNC(ptsname, , LIBS="${LIBS} -lpt")
+  ## I've never seen Tcl or Tk include -lpt so don't bother with explicit test
+  #AC_CHECK_FUNC(ptsname, , EXP_AND_TCL_LIBS="${EXP_AND_TCL_LIBS} -lpt")
+  #AC_CHECK_FUNC(ptsname, , EXP_AND_TK_LIBS="${EXP_AND_TK_LIBS} -lpt")
+#else
+  #AC_MSG_RESULT(no)
+#fi
+AC_MSG_RESULT(disabled_in_configure.in)
 
 # In OSF/1 case, SVR4 are somewhat different.
 # Gregory Depp <depp@osf.org> 17Aug93