Re: utmp in trixie
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 17:41:46 -0400, Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org>
wrote:
>On Thu, Apr 03, 2025 at 07:52:12PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>>On Apr 03, Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> wrote:
>>>The issue isn't making a change, the issue is what change is the
>>>right thing to do. IMO, dropping utmp without any kind of a
>>>transition or deprecation period is the wrong thing to do. Hence
>>>this thread.
>>I think it's a bit late now to disagree with the plan implemented last
>>year by multiple maintainers.
>
>Except, of course, for the primary consumer of utmp...
>
>I'm the one who gets the complaints that who isn't working right, and
>there isn't a solution to that problem, since the systemd facility
>doesn't provide the same information. I'd argue that a lot of people
>didn't realize how screwed up things were going to be, because the
>change didn't impact normal use until after a reboot. So people have
>slowly been finding out over time that a decades-old interface is no
>longer available, and the answer "well, we decided to drop it" falls a
>little flat since there seems to be no actual reason to not just support
>both mechanisms.
Can your package handle the classic on-disk format when it is compiled
with 64 bit time_t? I remember there was some discussion about that
back then.
Greetings
Marc
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header
Rhein-Neckar, DE | Beginning of Wisdom " |
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
Reply to: