From owner-freebsd-isp Wed Apr 23 21:17:34 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id VAA14186 for isp-outgoing; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 21:17:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ns2.harborcom.net (root@ns2.harborcom.net [206.158.4.4]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA14165; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 21:17:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (bradley@localhost) by ns2.harborcom.net (8.8.5/8.8.4) with SMTP id AAA15268; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 00:17:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 00:17:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Bradley Dunn X-Sender: bradley@ns2.harborcom.net To: David Nugent cc: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: longer usernames In-Reply-To: <19970413103855.23362@usn.blaze.net.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-isp@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Sun, 13 Apr 1997, David Nugent wrote: > And cvs log entries. There were a few other subtle changes that > have leaked through since. > > FWIW, FreeBSD-current supports *15* character login names, not > 16. In addition to the headers, there was a problem with the > 'proc' struct in the kernel (setlogin(), I think) and a few > userland changes involved as well where the size was assumed > to be 8. Would it be possible for someone to commit the changes where a length of 8 was assumed to 2.2? It shouldn't make any visible difference as long as people keep the headers the same, right? It would just make it easier for people to enable the long names if we didn't have to worry about finding all the places where we have to replace 8 with MAXLOGNAME or UT_NAMESIZE or whatever. Maybe even in the header files: #ifdef LONG_USERNAMES #define UT_NAMESIZE 16 #else #define UT_NAMESIZE 8 #endif etc... Pretty please? :) Just think, then answering all of these questions would be so much easier. :) pbd -- Why can't you be a non-conformist like everyone else?