Patches for Solaris 8 compile
tsoome at ut.ee
Thu Mar 8 21:45:46 GMT 2001
On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, David Lee wrote:
> Firstly my huge apologies, especially to Toomas Soome, for not replying
> earlier on this thread, which I recall he started before Christmas.
thanks:) I really do not like to send mails to black hole:)
> I seem to recall that the "finger" problem was spotted last summer, but
> that the consensus was to live with it as a curious feature.
> > It's one of those "we have no business doing things there" issues that
> > will cause problems with administrators.
> As I understand (I may be wrong), "utmp*" support requires some sort of
> "line". This is what the "/dev/smb/1" invention is: in one sense, simply
> a marker. But I also tend to agree with Jeremy et al that Samba probably
> should not be diddling with such (pseudo-)devices in the system.
> One vital thing to bear in mind, is that utmp* support is incredibly
> varied across UNIX systems. The portability considerations are large, as
> I discovered the hard way!
> Note that I invented "/dev/smb/1" as a subdirectory. This follows the
> Solaris model (but note that other systems have a different model: see the
> source code). I suppose that, being a self-contained directory, it would
> at least constrain any activity, were the decision made to create such
> Perhaps there could be yet another parameter: boolean "utmp create line",
> propably defaulting off, to allow brave sys.admins to configure their
> machines to create these entities. Might that help?
this is good idea, I think. I'm quite like to see this information with
w/who/finger... but yes, I can agree, not everybody will be happy with
this. so, configurable capability will be good solution.
Lizzie Borden took an axe,
And plunged it deep into the VAX;
Don't you envy people who
Do all the things YOU want to do?
More information about the samba-technical