Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 17 Jun 1996 23:30:53 +0400 (MSD)
From:      =?KOI8-R?Q?=E1=CE=C4=D2=C5=CA_=FE=C5=D2=CE=CF=D7?= (aka Andrey A. Chernov, Black Mage) <ache@astral.msk.su>
To:        peter@spinner.dialix.com (Peter Wemm)
Cc:        CVS-committers@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-all@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-usrbin@freefall.freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/w w.c
Message-ID:  <199606171930.XAA00442@astral.msk.su>
In-Reply-To: <199606171849.CAA01858@spinner.DIALix.COM> from "Peter Wemm" at "Jun 18, 96 02:49:00 am"

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >ache        96/06/17 11:35:19
> >
> >  Modified:    usr.bin/w  w.c
> >  Log:
> >  Don't try convert "-" to numeric form for -n option
> 
> I'm not sure I like the direction this is going..  The ut_host field is 
> useful for storing various sorts of useful information, the changes that 

Well, I need an example, at least one. All programs that I found keeps
hostname in this field and _not_ various sorts of info. I mean general
	[<hostname>][:<anything>]
format.
Moreover some statistics packages assume real hostname there,
it will be nice for security reasons too or one host can
mimic to another by using truncated names assumption.
I think nobody wants to keep junk in utmp/wtmp/lastlog and junk
will be there for all hostnames > 16.

> have just been made cause 'w -n' to break and print error messages if it 
> cant resolve an internet-visible hostname in the field.  At the very 
> least, it should print what was there rather than breaking the formatting 
> to print an error and no ut_host data.

"What is there" can be an attempt to mimic to another host, I prefer
error which is normally will _not_ printed because your machine _already_ got
this name from nameserver before writing it to utmp.

> IMHO, the -n option was documented badly.  As originally implemented, it 
> was a "dont convert IP addresses to names" flag, but the man page wasn't 
> in sync.  I think that actively attempting to *convert* ut_host data to IP 

I think manpage is right (it is the same flag as for netstat and it
is very useful for scripts, please check PR original 402).
I think w historically assumes IP address in utmp.

> addresses (consider what 'screen' and the various 'xterm' etc programs put 
> in there) is a mistake.

Sorry, I am not complete my changes at this moment, next w.c version
will be compatible with xterm, screen and others. w.c already
parses hostname using general format from above (I mean :xxx).

-- 
Andrey A. Chernov        : And I rest so composedly,  /Now, in my bed,
ache@astral.msk.su       : That any beholder  /Might fancy me dead -
http://dt.demos.su/~ache : Might start at beholding me,  /Thinking me dead.
RELCOM Team,FreeBSD Team :         E.A.Poe         From "For Annie" 1849



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199606171930.XAA00442>