Re: libc6 version of "last"?

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: libc6 version of "last"?
From: Guy Maor <maor@ece.utexas.edu>
Date: 26 Sep 1997 11:19:37 -0500
Message-id: <[🔎] 87lo0k6o9y.fsf@slip-128-22.ots.utexas.edu>
In-reply-to: Lawrence's message of Sat, 27 Sep 1997 02:19:27 +1000
References: <[🔎] 6rk9g4yzof.fsf@franz.stat.wisc.edu> <[🔎] 87raac6rel.fsf@slip-128-22.ots.utexas.edu> <[🔎] 342BE08E.82ECF288@ForeverMail.com>

Lawrence <ychim@ForeverMail.com> writes:

> sorry for my curious, is the wtmp change made because of libc6 or hamm?

libc6 changed the structures.

utmp won't get corrupted by libc5 programs (assuming they use the
*utent functions) because the libc5 in hamm uses the libc6 structures
internally.  wtmp will get corrupted because there are no libc5
functions to write to wtmp.


Guy


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .

Reply to:

References:
- libc6 version of "last"?
  - From: Douglas Bates <bates@stat.wisc.edu>
- Re: libc6 version of "last"?
  - From: Guy Maor <maor@ece.utexas.edu>
- Re: libc6 version of "last"?
  - From: Lawrence <ychim@ForeverMail.com>

Prev by Date: Re: `gs-aladdin-5.03': I've packaged it.
Next by Date: Re: `gs-aladdin-5.03': I've packaged it.
Previous by thread: Re: libc6 version of "last"?
Next by thread: Re: libc6 version of "last"?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread