From owner-freebsd-current  Fri Jan  3 21:58:00 1997
Return-Path: <owner-current>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id VAA01020
          for current-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 21:58:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id VAA01000;
          Fri, 3 Jan 1997 21:57:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.4/8.6.9) with ESMTP id VAA24924; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 21:57:48 -0800 (PST)
To: Paul Traina <pst@shockwave.com>
cc: phk@freebsd.org, jkh@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: utmp changes 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 03 Jan 1997 09:37:19 PST."
             <199701031737.JAA00399@precipice.shockwave.com> 
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 1997 21:57:47 -0800
Message-ID: <24920.852357467@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> I'm just back from a few weeks out of the country, so my memory may be
> stale, but I thought if we were going to break utmp compatibility, we
> were going to put in ALL of the requested changes right now, instead
> of doing it bit by bit.
> 
> I believe P-H wanted a larger field for the host size (16 is silly) and
> an additional field for the IPv[46] address.  If so, let's get them done
> now before we have to re-compile and link every application twice.

I've no objection, and was kind of wondering about that myself.

						Jordan