Hi, On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 10:07:05AM +0200, Patrik Olsson wrote: > On Fri, 2010-04-16 at 04:24 +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote:
> > I wonder whether it wouldn't be smarter just to abolish gid_t > > alltogether instead -- they are not likely to ever differ in > > technical terms, and there is probably no type checking worth > > talking of involved either... > > I thought about that too. Should it be wanted, I have attached a patch > that does this. [...] > 72 files changed, 101 insertions(+), 101 deletions(-) Hm... Perhaps not such a good idea after all -- the actual code seems to use gid_t everywhere; it's just the RPC definitions that are mixing them up... I wonder whether it would be very ugly to abolish the one use of gid_t in the RPC interfaces, but keep it in the code... Or do it properly. How much work would it really be to use gid_t in all the RPC interfaces that actually deal with GIDs? -antrik-
