Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 16:58:25 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: davidn@labs.usn.blaze.net.au (David Nugent) Cc: terry@lambert.org, msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: utmp/wtmp interface Message-ID: <199707282358.QAA01875@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199707282215.IAA24833@labs.usn.blaze.net.au> from "David Nugent" at Jul 29, 97 08:15:13 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> utmp is of course different. init primarily manages this and > needs to *update* records in it, which are accessed randomly. > This really does need to be fixed length format. Yes; are you suggesting different formats for the files? This is kind of an annoying idea, if only because it's been murder trying to get most of the configuration data into a unified format, and then here we go adding Yet Another Format. 8-(. > I'll announce again when I'm done (I'd say a few days, but the way > things are right now, it might be a few weeks :-(). And Terry, > just for you, I'll include the proposed new version of last that > uses the getwt*() api and the wtmp (current format) -> wtmp (text) > converter which will demonstrate my point with regards to performance; > you only need to recompile/install the new libutil to change the > format you want to test with (which is really the point of this > exercise). Thanks; 8-). Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199707282358.QAA01875>