Agreed. Leave it stripped out, it's era has passed.
On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 12:53 PM Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Hal Murray :
> >
> > I just pushed the fix to bypass that chunk of code if utmpx.h isn't
> available.
> >
> > It should build on OpenBSD and RTEMS, or at least not fail for that
> reason
Hal Murray :
>
> I just pushed the fix to bypass that chunk of code if utmpx.h isn't available.
>
> It should build on OpenBSD and RTEMS, or at least not fail for that reason.
OK, I'm fine with that outcome.
--
http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond
On Feb 6, 2016, at 12:11 PM, Hal Murray wrote:
> Does buildbot have an OpenBSD machine?
>
> Do we have a way to test on RTEMS?
The 32 and 64 bit OpenBSD VMs are a five minute problem.
I can get them tested before my nap.
A VM of RTEMS would be cool!
Dan
___
j...@rtems.org said:
> What is this really used for? How could the same goal be achieved in a
> single process, multi-threaded OS?
Accounting. Think back to the days of time sharing where you got billed for
how many minutes you were dialed in and how many CPU seconds you used.
--
These are
I just pushed the fix to bypass that chunk of code if utmpx.h isn't available.
It should build on OpenBSD and RTEMS, or at least not fail for that reason.
--
These are my opinions. I hate spam.
___
devel mailing list
devel@ntpsec.org
http://list
On 2016-02-06 14:34 -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
>
> OK. With that context, I think this stopped being a real issue a long time
> ago.
> Nobody bills by login time these days because pay-for-play timesharing is
> as dead as disco. It stopped making sense when personal worstations connected
> by
Nevermind Hal already removed it.
Amar.
___
devel mailing list
devel@ntpsec.org
http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 2016-02-06 10:11 -0800, Hal Murray wrote:
>
> Does buildbot have an OpenBSD machine?
Yes, I will hook it up to BuildBot as soon as this problem is fixed.
> Do we have a way to test on RTEMS?
Working on this not sure what the ETA is.
Amar.
___
de
Hal Murray :
>
> e...@thyrsus.com said:
> > >We could easily and cleanly bypass the code that uses utmpx. That would >
> > screwup accounting if time stepped by more than a second.
>
> > I'm not entirely clear on the referent of "that". The *bypass* would screw
> > up accounting if time stepped
On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Hal Murray wrote:
>
> e...@thyrsus.com said:
> > >We could easily and cleanly bypass the code that uses utmpx. That
> would >
> > screwup accounting if time stepped by more than a second.
>
> > I'm not entirely clear on the referent of "that". The *bypass* would
e...@thyrsus.com said:
> >We could easily and cleanly bypass the code that uses utmpx. That would >
> screwup accounting if time stepped by more than a second.
> I'm not entirely clear on the referent of "that". The *bypass* would screw
> up accounting if time stepped by more than a second?
On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Amar Takhar :
> > 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
Amar Takhar :
> 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
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
v...@darkbeer.org said:
> In 7d8b2d1 utmpx.h was always assumed to be available. This is not true as
> OpenBSD does not have utmpx support.
> Can someone look at this please and bring it back? The old way seems a
> little convoluted if there is a better way we should try it.
I took a quick lo
In 7d8b2d1 utmpx.h was always assumed to be available. This is not true as
OpenBSD does not have utmpx support.
There is no point in hoping for utmpx support in OpenBSD either I won't repeat
the discussions here but there are plenty on the OpenBSD lists.
Can someone look at this please and bri
16 matches
Mail list logo
