From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Oct 15 13:30:42 1996 Return-Path: owner-chat Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id NAA06322 for chat-outgoing; Tue, 15 Oct 1996 13:30:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from who.cdrom.com (who.cdrom.com [204.216.27.3]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA06311 for ; Tue, 15 Oct 1996 13:30:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from irz301.inf.tu-dresden.de (irz301.inf.tu-dresden.de [141.76.1.11]) by who.cdrom.com (8.7.5/8.6.11) with SMTP id NAA23822 for ; Tue, 15 Oct 1996 13:30:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sax.sax.de (sax.sax.de [193.175.26.33]) by irz301.inf.tu-dresden.de (8.6.12/8.6.12-s1) with ESMTP id WAA10094; Tue, 15 Oct 1996 22:20:48 +0200 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by sax.sax.de (8.6.12/8.6.12-s1) with UUCP id WAA14848; Tue, 15 Oct 1996 22:20:48 +0200 Received: (from j@localhost) by uriah.heep.sax.de (8.7.6/8.6.9) id WAA13032; Tue, 15 Oct 1996 22:07:39 +0200 (MET DST) From: J Wunsch Message-Id: <199610152007.WAA13032@uriah.heep.sax.de> Subject: Re: 8 character login limit?! To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 22:07:39 +0200 (MET DST) Cc: dwhite@resnet.uoregon.edu, freebsd@trogon.kiwi.net, branson@widomaker.com (Branson Matheson) Reply-To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de (Joerg Wunsch) In-Reply-To: from Branson Matheson at "Oct 15, 96 07:32:23 am" X-Phone: +49-351-2012 669 X-PGP-Fingerprint: DC 47 E6 E4 FF A6 E9 8F 93 21 E0 7D F9 12 D6 4E X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL17 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-chat@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk As Branson Matheson wrote: > > You don't want to do this. Things break, and in addition to changing > > utmp.h, you have to recompile *everything* ('make world' style). > > GRRRRR... Here we go again... instead of saying there is too much the > will need to be fixed to make this available... lets say, what is > broken, chmod in this case, fix it and apply a change to the source > tree. The problem is, that ``fixing the problem'' will break interoperab- ility via NIS, and backwards compatibility to old wtmp files (aka. last(1)). That's why it's hard to find a majority of developers who support your opinion. Actually, only very few sites (mostly ISPs) are in a need for the change. Right now, our wtmp files are backwards compatible most likely even to 386BSD 0.1, but at least (as i know for sure) to FreeBSD 1.1.5.1. -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)