Re: db(3) removal and lastlogx

[Matthew Mondor <mm_lists%pulsar-zone.net@localhost>]

On Sat, 9 Jun 2012 08:44:54 +0200
Martin Husemann <martin%duskware.de@localhost> wrote:

> I missed the start of this thread and have a stupid question: why are we
> trying to get rid of db(3) in libc?

I wonder exactly the same thing:

Why get rid of a mature, versatile system, already in libc under an
acceptable license and size, that even currently does a good job at
maintaining the lastlog without the sparse file issues?  I also expect
db(3) to be used by third parties, as it's been part of BSD for a long
time (and db4 is under a more restrictive license)...

Do we have kernel support for efficiently detecting file system holes,
and are our copying/moving/archiving tools dealing gracefully with
sparse files by default (unlikely)?

Thanks,
-- 
Matt