Subject: Re: UT_HOSTSIZE vs. MAXHOSTNAMELEN
To: Brian Stark <email@example.com>
From: Bill Sommerfeld <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 10/01/1999 17:23:55
> I think UT_HOSTSIZE needs to be increased. Comments anyone?
This has been discussed before.
You can't do it without breaking binary compatibility with existing
programs, some of which include third-party programs like screen,
which read utmp. Backwards binary compatibility is regarded as a good
thing (regardless of what G**g W**ds says).
Someone needs to APIify the utmp interface so we can rev things like
this without causing trauma.