From owner-freebsd-current  Sat Jul 10  2:28:22 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from kiwi.datasys.net (kiwi.datasys.net [209.119.145.2])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23B3414CF7
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 02:28:19 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ayan@kiwi.datasys.net)
Received: (from root@localhost)
	by kiwi.datasys.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA79011
	for freebsd-current@freebsd.org; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 05:28:20 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from ayan)
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 05:28:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ayan George <ayan@kiwi.datasys.net>
Message-Id: <199907100928.FAA79011@kiwi.datasys.net>
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.6 beta(5) 10/07/98)
To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject: utmp & last
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

Why do we store the utmp/wtmp and last logs in different data
structures?

What seems strange is that they use the different data types to
store the same information (the time):

	   struct lastlog {
		   time_t  ll_time;
		   char    ll_line[UT_LINESIZE];
		   char    ll_host[UT_HOSTSIZE];
	   };

	   struct utmp {
		   char    ut_line[UT_LINESIZE];
		   char    ut_name[UT_NAMESIZE];
		   char    ut_host[UT_HOSTSIZE];
		   long    ut_time;
	   };

Not that there is any _real_ difference between long and time_t,
but it would imagine we'd want to be as consistant as possable.

Anyhow, IMHO the umtp filestructure should be used to store the
last log.  At the same time, I'm sure there is a reason for
the way things are.  Could someone clue me in?

-Ayan


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message