From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Sep 24 07:00:38 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 A2BE116A4B3
	for <freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org>;
	Wed, 24 Sep 2003 07:00:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CD1643FE5
	for <freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org>;
	Wed, 24 Sep 2003 07:00:37 -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 h8OE0bFY093013
	for <freebsd-bugs@freefall.freebsd.org>;
	Wed, 24 Sep 2003 07:00:37 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org)
Received: (from gnats@localhost)
	by freefall.freebsd.org (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h8OE0aQi093011;
	Wed, 24 Sep 2003 07:00:36 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from gnats)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 07:00:36 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <200309241400.h8OE0aQi093011@freefall.freebsd.org>
To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org
From: Kirk Strauser <kirk@strauser.com>
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: Kirk Strauser <kirk@strauser.com>
List-Id: Bug reports <freebsd-bugs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-bugs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-bugs>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-bugs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:00:38 -0000

The following reply was made to PR bin/57089; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Kirk Strauser <kirk@strauser.com>
To: "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd@over-yonder.net>
Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: bin/57089: "w" does not honor the -n option
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 08:53:02 -0500

 --=-=-=
 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
 At 2003-09-24T06:18:35Z, "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd@over-yonder.net> wri=
 tes:
 
 >> but is there a good reason not to additionally store the address?
 
 > See utmp(5):
 
 > I believe the format of the structure is also constrained in some way by
 > POSIX, so we may not, even if we wanted to, be able to add arbitrary
 > fields.
 
 Ahhh - that was the part I was wondering about.  It seemed straightforward
 to add to the struct, but I admittedly know nothing about the standards
 involved.
 
 > Personally, I tend to think that storing both the PTR resolution and the
 > address would be a good thing, but when constrained to one the address is
 > DEFINITELY the one we want to keep in preference to a possibly transient
 > name.
 
 I agree completely.  There may be a large number of addresses with the same
 hostname, but the address is (hopefully) a unique identifier.
 =2D-=20
 Kirk Strauser
 
 --=-=-=
 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
 
 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
 Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
 
 iD8DBQA/caHO5sRg+Y0CpvERAuSuAJ4qtCfHTQJeqi7T4pZKbNMu+obXnQCZAbWr
 eZ7Qy7SIYiqpYG35zyk463U=
 =1lCv
 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 --=-=-=--