This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [Michael Deutschmann <michael@talamasca.wkpowerlink.com>] libc/1463: Want option to make utmpd create/delete utmp files
- To: Ulrich Drepper <drepper at cygnus dot com>, Mark Kettenis <kettenis at wins dot uva dot nl>, aj at suse dot de, libc-alpha at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
- Subject: Re: [Michael Deutschmann <michael@talamasca.wkpowerlink.com>] libc/1463: Want option to make utmpd create/delete utmp files
- From: Michael Deutschmann <michael at talamasca dot ocis dot net>
- Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 17:43:29 -0700 (PDT)
This issue seems to have been forgotten.
On Fri, 26 Nov 1999, I wrote:
> On 26 Nov 1999, you wrote:
> > I agree. So the question is why Michael is still using it.
> > Misinformation about the necessity?
>
> *I'm* not using it. I moved to libc-2.0 in one go and never looked
> back. I'm looking out for any of *my users* who want to use utmpd. (mind
> you, I don't know if I have any...)
>
> README.utmpd quite clearly implies that any program that cannot cooperate
> with utmpd should be considered buggy.
>
> BTW: I think you should make utmpd, and the glibc code that supports
> it, into an add-on module. I don't see how it affects the ABI, so it should
> not introduce new binary-compatiblity woes if some libc.so.6's have it
> and some don't. It would be a relatively harmless way to cut down bloat.
>
> ---- Michael Deutschmann <michael@talamasca.wkpowerlink.com>
So what's it gonna be:
Will UTMPD be removed, thus ending any onus on me to support it, or will
it be patched as I asked?
---- Michael Deutschmann <michael@talamasca.ocis.net>