Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 12:07:48 -0500 (CDT) From: Craig Johnston <craig@gnofn.org> To: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: sad UT_HOSTSIZE of 16 Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970619115601.25018A-100000@sparkie.gnofn.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
If we're even going to store the remote hostname in utmp, in this day and age of ridiculously long hostnames, shouldn't we go for a bit more than 16 chars? 16 chars is not enough for a human to be able to figure out many entire addresses these days, much less a program. For example: ip119.harvey.la. It'd be nice to know that we were dealing with ip119.harvey.la.pub-ip. psi.net, no? 16 for display purposes might be just fine, but it'd be nice to have 255 chars or so of remote hostname stored in the utmp file. Sure, we can find out more other ways, but I think it should be in utmp. Of course the question is: what breaks? -Craig
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.3.95.970619115601.25018A-100000>