>  Of course, IPv6 numerical addresses don't fit in utmp...
>mcr      ttyp5    Oct 12 06:05  (2002:cf23:e0e2:1)
>mcr      ttyp7    Oct 12 06:03  (2002:cf23:e0e2:1)
>  I think that we had this discussion before once. How was it resolved?
>  I think that it was *not* resolved.... discussions about /dev/utmp and
>other stuff as I recall. 
>  Reply to me! I don't want to start a flame war.

	it wasn't resolved, and there wasn't a flamewar.

	there were couple of comments, including:
	- just change UT_HOSTSIZE (no backward compat)
	- use extra plaintext file based on other OS's practice
	- ...
	and there seem to be no consensus.

itojun