Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 01:06:13 +0400 (MSD) From: =?KOI8-R?Q?=E1=CE=C4=D2=C5=CA_=FE=C5=D2=CE=CF=D7?= (aka Andrey A. Chernov, Black Mage) <ache@astral.msk.su> To: peter@spinner.dialix.com (Peter Wemm) Cc: CVS-committers@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-all@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-usrbin@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/w w.c Message-ID: <199606172106.BAA00916@astral.msk.su> In-Reply-To: <199606172017.EAA02442@spinner.DIALix.COM> from "Peter Wemm" at "Jun 18, 96 04:17:32 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> hstake A04 28800/ARQ:ppp 2:53AM 50 -tserv > I think it's pretty obvious when a hostname is invalid.. I'm not arguing > about the conversion to IP addresses, I just dont like the new error > messages when something slips through. As I said in previous message, I agree here. I already remove error message, it will be no surprises in that case. > No, it's a different case.. With 'route' and 'netstat' etc, the program > starts off with an IP address and converts it to a hostname, and the -n > flag disables the conversion and causes it to be displayed in it's natural > form. If anything, the traditional meaning of "-n" means "no nameserver > lookups", which is opposite of what you've done. Now, 'w -n' causes the > nameserver to be referenced! :-( Netstat man says just about numeric form (like w man) and nothing about nameserver. Lets not follow somehow obsoleted tradition but looks from user point of view: he want ether names or numeric addresses and can know nothing about nameserver lookups Now about w changes exactly: if you don't run nameserver, you'll have numeric adresses in your utmp instead of names. If numeric address already present, w does't refer to nameserver, just print it. > (I think I should go and add a leading ":" to the entry that our modem > pool monitoring software stores there since there seems to be a > convention.. screen puts in things like ":ttyp6:S.0". If this indeed is > the "rule", then a mention should be made in the utmp man page...) All programs I see do it in that way, expect, maybe xterm: > (I realise you're still working on it, but it's still not quite compatable > with xterm.. X11 can have a $DISPLAY of "unix:0.0") personally I never see such entry in utmp. Are you talking about $DISPLAY only or you saw it in utmp too? > Incidently, how long has it been since the last round of discussion about > the utmp/wtmp record size? I personally would like the default utmp/wtmp > record size changed so that usernames are increased from 8 characters to > either 12 or 16, and a new field added to store an IP address, and the pid > of the session (allowing easier tracking of user processes from utmp > records).. Few methods available here: 1) Increase ut_host to MAXHOSTNAMELEN. It will be most safest way, all programs must be recompiled only (and not rewritted). Size utmp/wtmp/lastlog increases :-( 2) Always store IP address in different field instead of hostname (some OS do it). All programs must be rewritted :-( -- Andrey A. Chernov : And I rest so composedly, /Now, in my bed, ache@astral.msk.su : That any beholder /Might fancy me dead - http://dt.demos.su/~ache : Might start at beholding me, /Thinking me dead. RELCOM Team,FreeBSD Team : E.A.Poe From "For Annie" 1849
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199606172106.BAA00916>