The file "logwtmp.c" is part of the time zone package to ensure that a "date" command can be compiled. The time zone Makefile notes that: # We use the system's logwtmp in preference to ours if available. Well then: are there any systems out there today that need the time zone package's version of logwtmp.c? If there aren't, we can drop logwtmp.c from the package. If there are, we need to provide compile-time control over whether time stamps written to the log file are four bytes (to be compatible with historic practice) or eight bytes (the emerging width of time stamps). --ado
Well then: are there any systems out there today that need the time zone package's version of logwtmp.c?
Doesn't Solaris need logwtmp.c? It doesn't have a logwtmp function in libc.a.
On systems (such as Solaris) with "OLD_TIME" defined, the time zone package "date.c" calls pututline or pututxline rather than logwtmp. So the better question: are there any systems that have neither OLD_TIME defined nor logwtmp in libc.a? --ado
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:02:41 -0500, "Olson, Arthur David (NIH/NCI) [E]" <olsona@dc37a.nci.nih.gov> wrote:
Well then: are there any systems out there today that need the time zone package's version of logwtmp.c?
Doesn't Solaris need logwtmp.c? It doesn't have a logwtmp function in libc.a.
On systems (such as Solaris) with "OLD_TIME" defined, the time zone package "date.c" calls pututline or pututxline rather than logwtmp. So the better question: are there any systems that have neither OLD_TIME defined nor logwtmp in libc.a?
Non-Unix OSes and most Unix-like environments for other OSes do not have Unix login and accounting info and related library functions. -- Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada
participants (3)
-
Brian Inglis -
Olson, Arthur David (NIH/NCI) [E] -
Paul Eggert