On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 03:32:28PM -0800, Wesley Peters wrote: > On Monday 10 February 2003 23:59, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: > > Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > 1/ Command logging. We're thinking that a hacked version of the shell > > > that logs commands may do what they want, but personally I > > > think that if you are going to log things then you really want to > > > PROPERLY do it, and log the EXEC commands along with the arguments. > > > (sadmin et al. doesn't give arguments, and neither does ktrace) > > > > "Yes, we can do that" in the sense that it can be implemented if > > there's a demand for it, but I don't think any existing code can do > > it. > > Did we somehow break acct(2), or is that somehow inadequate to the task? It > should be ideal for what Julian's customer wants, I would think. See also > acct(5), sa(8) and accton(8).
acct(2) does not log the arguments to commands, just the commandnames. Since the arguments were specifically mentioned above acct(2) seems to be inadequate. -- <Insert your favourite quote here.> Erik Trulsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
