christos@zoulas.com (Christos Zoulas) writes:
> I've been thinking about the utmpx thing, and it seems to me that going
> to an svr4-like utmpx and and functions might not be the most suitable
> thing for us:
> 
> 	- there are fields that we don't need/don't have (run levels,
> 	  entry type, exit codes, pid)

None of those are specified in the SuS2 format, which is the
standard. See: http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/7908799/xsh/utmpx.h.html

I agree that we probably want a better format, but I think we need to
have the SuS2 API available for programs that want it.

> I propose that we keep a fixed length structure format internally
> again (for now) to simplify our migration, but we don't expose that
> fact to the api.

I don't know -- myself, I'd rather try to have the pain once....


-- 
Perry E. Metzger		perry@piermont.com
--
"Ask not what your country can force other people to do for you..."