Subject: Re: getpw*() changes to support YP netgroups
To: Christos Zoulas <>
From: Jason Downs <downsj@SJ.Xenotropic.COM>
List: tech-userlevel
Date: 07/17/1995 13:20:54
In message <>,
	Christos Zoulas writes:
>On Jul 14,  4:42pm, (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-(*) | C++(+++) UBAVHS++++$ P--- E--- N+++ W--- M-- V--
		      |                   Kato did it.