Darren J Moffat wrote: > On 21/05/2010 12:20, James Carlson wrote: >> On 05/20/10 22:51, Don Cragun wrote: >>> Since it is defined in the Solaris 10 limits.h(3HEAD) man page, a >>> "Conforming POSIX Application Using Extensions" is free to use >>> LOGNAME_MAX as defined in<limits.h> as long as it documents that it >>> uses this macro (and __EXTENSIONS__ as defined on the standards(5) >>> man page). You may wish that applications wouldn't do that, but >>> according to the standards, using documented features of an >>> implementation is not a bug; it just makes the program source less >>> portable. >> >> That only counts when in such an environment, though. A reasonable >> solution (borrowing from Bill's suggestion) would be to have LOGNAME_MAX >> defined as 9 when in a conforming environment, and intentionally >> undefined elsewhere. > > No I don't think that is reasonable, because it will only cause to > create applications that can only deal with shorter usernames which will > be different to the rest of the system. For the #define it will only > come into play if the application is recompiled on a release with this > change. Ultimately this just causes problems for users and admins.
It preserves the existing branding, allows "normal" applications to be improved, and permits those who feel they need strict conformance to get it. You can't have everything. > This case has minor release binding for a reason. I don't think anybody was ignoring the Minor release binding. I see nothing in the definition of "Committed" that allows incompatible change in a Minor release without an EOF, so I think what you may actually be asking for is the quasi-Major-like intentions of OpenSolaris/Indiana. No problem there, but the issues still aren't trivial, which is why this wasn't done in the past. It's not like we lacked Minor release vehicles 10 years ago. -- James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W <carls...@workingcode.com> _______________________________________________ opensolaris-arc mailing list opensolaris-arc@opensolaris.org
