On 2016-02-05 21:30 -0800, Hal Murray wrote: > > I took a quick look. It won't be hard to put that stuff back, but it's > typical of the sort of code that Eric ripped out for good reasons.
If we had known OpenBSD was going to be tossed out with it we would have kept it -- you're right it was removed for good reasons. > But do we want to go there? Is that a slippery slope? It's not, we need to support OpenBSD there is no way out of it. > We could easily and cleanly bypass the code that uses utmpx. That would > screwup accounting if time stepped by more than a second. > > Just curious, does anybody use accounting these days? If so, are they > running OpenBSD? No idea but I do not favour the idea of removing features to avoid adding workarounds. That's worse than adding utmp support back in. I think it's a reasonable solution for If it was more than touching a single file and adding a couple of ifdefs it would be a strong argument but for this case it's better to add it back in. > utmpx is part of POSIX. I didn't find a good reason why OpenBSD doesn't > support it. > > I did find one "strong +1" comment for not supporting non-posix workarounds. I will email some of the threads privately. Amar. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@ntpsec.org http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
