On 05/21/10 08:31 AM, James Carlson wrote:
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
On 20/05/2010 21:37, Don Cragun wrote:
I'm not disagreeing with the move to 32 bytes. I just believe that the
ARC needs to make it clear that doing so is a conscious decision to break
the ABIs and that it does not set a precedent for other ABI breakage. If
I remember correctly, an opinion
On 20/05/2010 21:45, Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 01:42:30PM -0700, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
Nicolas Williams wrote:
In any case, customers that require strict SysV ABI compliance (e.g.,
customers that have apps that use LOGNAME_MAX and/or L_cuserid and who
cannot or will not
On 20/05/2010 22:06, I. Szczesniak wrote:
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Don Cragundcra...@sonic.net wrote:
The reason that LOGNAME_MAX was stuck at 8 inlimits.h for so long
is that the System V ABIs and the SCDs require that value.
Solaris 10 has been breaking ABI requirements around the
Darren J Moffat darren.mof...@oracle.com wrote:
On 20/05/2010 21:37, Don Cragun wrote:
I'm not disagreeing with the move to 32 bytes. I just believe that the
ARC needs to make it clear that doing so is a conscious decision to break
the ABIs and that it does not set a precedent for other
On 05/21/10 04:18, Darren J Moffat wrote:
On 20/05/2010 21:37, Don Cragun wrote:
I'm not disagreeing with the move to 32 bytes. I just believe that the
ARC needs to make it clear that doing so is a conscious decision to break
the ABIs and that it does not set a precedent for other ABI
On 21/05/2010 12:15, James Carlson wrote:
On 05/21/10 04:18, Darren J Moffat wrote:
On 20/05/2010 21:37, Don Cragun wrote:
I'm not disagreeing with the move to 32 bytes. I just believe that the
ARC needs to make it clear that doing so is a conscious decision to break
the ABIs and that it does
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
Darren J Moffat wrote:
On 21/05/2010 12:15, James Carlson wrote:
On 05/21/10 04:18, Darren J Moffat wrote:
On 20/05/2010 21:37, Don Cragun wrote:
I'm not disagreeing with the move to 32 bytes. I just believe that the
ARC needs to make it clear that doing so is a conscious decision to
break
On 21/05/2010 16:19, James Carlson wrote:
The second is the standards group branding issue. The value 9 is baked
into the UNIX98 and UNIX03 reference materials, so changing it (at least
inside those conforming environments) means either re-doing the branding
or ceasing to be UNIX in that sense.
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 inlimits.h as long as it documents that
Just FYI:
I can confirm what Bill points out below. Solaris naming services does not
intentionally impose a limits on the length of username (or any other
variable
length strings like gecos etc.). NIS currently still has a 4k buffer
max, so
a NIS passwd entry total length has that upwards
Darren J Moffat wrote:
On 21/05/2010 16:19, James Carlson wrote:
The second is the standards group branding issue. The value 9 is baked
into the UNIX98 and UNIX03 reference materials, so changing it (at least
inside those conforming environments) means either re-doing the branding
or ceasing
On 21/05/2010 16:48, James Carlson wrote:
I'm certainly not saying don't do it. In fact, I want to see it
happen. Nor am I trying to slow it down. I just want it done _right_.
Until such time as an ARC member derails it and asks for it to be voted
on it is being done right.
--
Darren J
Darren J Moffat wrote:
On 21/05/2010 16:58, joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
LOGNAME_MAX is documented as a public committed interface in
limits.h(3HEAD). How do you deal with that?
LOGNAME_MAX is not part of the standard.
As Solaris removed utmp and wtmp a long time ago, I would
From alan.coopersm...@oracle.com Fri May 21 10:57:07 2010
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 10:57:05 -0700
From: Alan Coopersmith alan.coopersm...@oracle.com
Subject: Re: Username length [PSARC/2010/184 FastTrack timeout
5/27/2010]
To: James Carlson carls...@workingcode.com
Cc: Nicolas
On May 21, 2010, at 16:30:01 +0100, darr...@opensolaris.org wrote:
On 21/05/2010 16:19, James Carlson wrote:
The second is the standards group branding issue. The value 9 is baked
into the UNIX98 and UNIX03 reference materials, so changing it (at least
inside those conforming environments)
Don Cragun dcra...@sonic.net wrote:
http://www.opengroup.org/csq/view.mhtml?norationale=1noreferences=1RID=sun%2FSD1%2F7
specifies that the minimum value of LOGIN_NAME_MAX is 9 and the
maximum value of LOGIN_NAME_MAX is 9. So, making the changes proposed
in this case require one of the
The reason that LOGNAME_MAX was stuck at 8 in limits.h for so long
is that the System V ABIs and the SCDs require that value.
Solaris 10 has been breaking ABI requirements around the edges for a
few years. Since this is case is departing from more ABI
requirements, should it have a major release
On May 20, 2010, at 1:01 PM, Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 12:18:58PM -0700, Don Cragun wrote:
The reason that LOGNAME_MAX was stuck at 8 in limits.h for so long
is that the System V ABIs and the SCDs require that value.
Solaris 10 has been breaking ABI requirements around
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 01:42:30PM -0700, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
Nicolas Williams wrote:
In any case, customers that require strict SysV ABI compliance (e.g.,
customers that have apps that use LOGNAME_MAX and/or L_cuserid and who
cannot or will not re-build those apps) can always stick to
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Don Cragun dcra...@sonic.net wrote:
The reason that LOGNAME_MAX was stuck at 8 in limits.h for so long
is that the System V ABIs and the SCDs require that value.
Solaris 10 has been breaking ABI requirements around the edges for a
few years. Since this is
On 05/20/10 02:06 PM, I. Szczesniak wrote:
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Don Cragundcra...@sonic.net wrote:
The reason that LOGNAME_MAX was stuck at 8 inlimits.h for so long
is that the System V ABIs and the SCDs require that value.
Solaris 10 has been breaking ABI requirements around
On May 20, 2010, at 2:24 PM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
On 05/20/10 02:06 PM, I. Szczesniak wrote:
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Don Cragundcra...@sonic.net wrote:
The reason that LOGNAME_MAX was stuck at 8 inlimits.h for so long
is that the System V ABIs and the SCDs require that value.
On 05/20/10 19:57, James Carlson wrote:
Of course, I welcome the change, and I'd be quite surprised if Informix
up 'n fell over on it. It's about danged time. I'm sure Mr. Sommerfe
and the Legions of the Truncated Surnames will agree. ;-}
Indeed.
Where possible, I've been running with a
25 matches
Mail list logo
