In message <199507150052.UAA17741@es2.deshaw.com>,
	Christos Zoulas writes:
>On Jul 14,  4:42pm, jconklin@netcom.com (J.T. Conklin) wrote:
>-- Subject: Re: getpw*() changes to support YP netgroups
>
>| I don't think that changing the library major version isn't going to
>| help anything.  It probably be worse -- then all existing executables
>| will break, instead of just statically linked and pre-libc.12.X
>| executables.
>
>I agree, in my opinion it is better to leave the library revision the same.
>
>| Changing the format of the passwd database files is not something to
>| be taken lightly.  Quite a few, perhaps most, of the programs I use
>| every day use getpwnam(), etc. and will have to be re-compiled.
>| 
>| I think that the following questions have to be answered:
>| 
>| 	1. Do the advantages of this change outweigh the
>| 	   disadvantages?  In particular, consider comercial software
>| 	   that does not come with source.
>
>Well, commercial software that is dynamically linked, will continue to
>work. Statically linked software will break. There is not much that can
>be done. If we want netgroups to work, we have to update the format.

This has got to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard.  NetBSD can't
even scrape enough users together to *get* any decent commercial
software, and here you go making format changes to a fundamental
portion of the system which will break any 1.0-style binaries when
running under post-1.0.

NetBSD is already a `moving target' for commcerial developers.  This
just made it worse ten fold, and proved all the points I find myself
arguing about with various people.  I.e., that NetBSD is not a
platform that encourages any sort of serious commercial development.

>| 	2. what has been done so that we won't be faced with this same
>| 	   issue 6 months or one year from now?
>
>The database format is now:
>
>    line-number followed by the actual passwd line
>
>This is more generic than it used to be. The line number addition is
>necessary because YP entries have to be processed in the order they are
>encountered in the file.

Bull.  You could already seek through the password database in the same
order as it was built from.  At least base your reasoning in fact.

--
Jason Downs           | GCS/CM -d+ H(+++) s+:++ !g p? !au w+ v-(*)
downsj@xenotropic.com | C++(+++) UBAVHS++++$ P--- E--- N+++ W--- M-- V--
                      |
		      |                   Kato did it.