Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 18:47:59 -0700 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: Tom <tom@uniserve.com> Cc: Studded <Studded@dal.net>, "freebsd-stable@freebsd.org" <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: >8 char usernames going into 2.2.5? Message-ID: <21119.874720079@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 19 Sep 1997 17:39:00 PDT." <Pine.BSF.3.96.970919173506.21453E-100000@shell.uniserve.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I'd like to register strong disagreement with the above. The change > itself, is simple. It is going to affect packages that read/alter > utmp/wtmp/lastlog. However, since the packages will be re-built > everything will be ok, as long as people don't use old packages. I think > we should get this change behind us. It is only get to get worse. Trust me, no matter how strong your disagreement with the above, there are plenty of folks who will disagree even more strongly with the idea of changing it. They don't want to have to update or convert in-place all their log data (and some people have utmp/wtmp logs which are archived for months and used to produce billing data) and for them, 2.2-stable represents the place to be when you don't want to suffer from mid-stream changes like that. 16 character usernames have been part of 3.0 for some time and is not even difficult to add to 2.2 on an as-needed basis (sheesh, you alter two header files and make the world - how hard can that be? ;), so I don't think it's quite fair to make it sound like BSDI has had the feature for 2 years and FreeBSD users have just been totally SOL on the matter. We make our sources available at no extra charge, eh? :-) Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?21119.874720079>