* Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So users using slightly old versions of screen, etc, shouldn't appear in > finger(1), w(1), or receive messages from biff(1), talk(1), write(1), > wall(1), shutdown(8), and dump(8), all of which (I believe) rely on > utmp(5) to determine who is logged in and where? I'm sure that quite a > few of these are of diminishing significance in the current world order > (certainly biff is), but I'm not convinced that we should exclude users > on historic tty devices from receiving advance notice of system shutdowns > or dump events.
Right now we're actually digging up the entire dynamic vs static linkage discussion again. If people run a dynamically linked version of screen, xterm, etc, they are not affected (except libc.so.6 of course). The amount of people that run a statically linked login service already ripped off their seal of warranty in my opinion, but I'd rather not make a bikeshed out of this. The current /etc/ttys already seemed like an improvement when compared to the old one, where we spent 2 out of 3 entries on commonly unused PTY names. What kind of ratio do you propose? -- Ed Schouten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> WWW: http://80386.nl/
pgprgzgcU7CYh.pgp
Description: PGP signature
