From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Sep 28 10:40:22 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D109116A4B3 for ; Sun, 28 Sep 2003 10:40:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 525A94402F for ; Sun, 28 Sep 2003 10:40:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8SHeMFY072260 for ; Sun, 28 Sep 2003 10:40:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h8SHeMZk072254; Sun, 28 Sep 2003 10:40:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 10:40:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200309281740.h8SHeMZk072254@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org From: Brian Somers Subject: Re: bin/57089: "w" does not honor the -n option X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: Brian Somers List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 17:40:22 -0000 The following reply was made to PR bin/57089; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Brian Somers To: Kirk Strauser Cc: Dima Dorfman , FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org, brian@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: bin/57089: "w" does not honor the -n option Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 18:37:41 +0100 I think this conversation reduces to the requirement for a new utmp format. And if we're going that route, we should really look at utmpx. I don't think anyone's done more than look at it though :*/ On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 18:39:18 -0500, Kirk Strauser wrote: > At 2003-09-22T22:43:00Z, Dima Dorfman writes: > > > and it looks like that rationale still applies. > > That makes a certain kind of sense, I suppose. > > > I've cc'd brian (who made that change) to see whether he has any input on > > this. The issue is: So, you want to see numeric addresses--but for which > > family? If a host resolves to a v4 and v6 address, which one should be > > displayed? > > Ideally, you'd see the address of the socket that the user is connecting on. > For diagnostic purposes, it'd be nice to get a deterministic answer that tty > p0 is connecting from 10.0.5.128, and tty p1 is connecting from > 2001:470:1f00:546:2a0:c9ff:fe08:260a . > > > Perhaps the programs that write to utmp/wtmp should just avoid writing > > hostnames? (although this is just a thought--I haven't tried to think > > through the implications of doing something like that) > > Well, I could see that it may be useful to have a "snapshot" of what the > hostname was at the time the user originally connected - DNS records do > change, after all - but is there a good reason not to additionally store the > address? > -- > Kirk Strauser > -- Brian Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour !