Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 07:00:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Kirk Strauser <kirk@strauser.com> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: bin/57089: "w" does not honor the -n option Message-ID: <200309241400.h8OE0aQi093011@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR bin/57089; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Kirk Strauser <kirk@strauser.com> To: "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd@over-yonder.net> Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: bin/57089: "w" does not honor the -n option Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 08:53:02 -0500 --=-=-= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable At 2003-09-24T06:18:35Z, "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd@over-yonder.net> wri= tes: >> but is there a good reason not to additionally store the address? > See utmp(5): > I believe the format of the structure is also constrained in some way by > POSIX, so we may not, even if we wanted to, be able to add arbitrary > fields. Ahhh - that was the part I was wondering about. It seemed straightforward to add to the struct, but I admittedly know nothing about the standards involved. > Personally, I tend to think that storing both the PTR resolution and the > address would be a good thing, but when constrained to one the address is > DEFINITELY the one we want to keep in preference to a possibly transient > name. I agree completely. There may be a large number of addresses with the same hostname, but the address is (hopefully) a unique identifier. =2D-=20 Kirk Strauser --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQA/caHO5sRg+Y0CpvERAuSuAJ4qtCfHTQJeqi7T4pZKbNMu+obXnQCZAbWr eZ7Qy7SIYiqpYG35zyk463U= =1lCv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200309241400.h8OE0aQi093011>