Re: Y2038, glibc and utmp/utmpx on 64bit architectures
Bruno Haible <[email protected]> Fri, 03 Mar 2023 23:11:49 +0100
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.distributions |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <2900303.CPfdCl3LZh@nimes> |
Thorsten Kukuk wrote: > > Do the glibc developers plan to remove the utmpx > > interface as well (together with utmp interface)? > > In glibc, utmpx is just an alias for utmp. > > > If yes, then > > - What is the point of your suggestion to "use the utmpx and not utmp > > interface", above? > > utmps only supports the utmpx interface, not utmp. So if you want to use > utmps, you need to convert all source code to utmpx. Thanks for the explanations. It's clear now. > > - Since there is no "FUTURE DIRECTIONS" in POSIX > > https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799.2018edition/functions/endutxent.html > > will the utmpx interface get deprecated in POSIX, or stay as it is? > > Is the Austin Group already involved? > > Linux is not POSIX conform, never was and there was never the plan to > become, but it tries to be as compatible with POSIX as possible where > it makes sense. If it does not make sense, POSIX will not be used. You > should be able to find several examples in glibc, where interfaces > derivate slightly from POSIX because the POSIX interface didn't made any > sense. > Parts of POSIX are really old (don't know how old utmp/utmpx are, but > they did exist already since a long time before I started to work > with Unix, and that's really a long time ago) and things are changing. > Today, utmp/utmpx create more problems then it solve. Many features of > it where never used on Linux or are meanwhile no longer used, at least > not with systemd. > There is just no benefit from it anymore. ... I don't disagree with that. Just that, as part of keeping Linux + glibc as close a possible to POSIX over the long term, when we remove a feature from glibc that is POSIX- standardized, we should also remove (or at least mark as LEGACY) this part from POSIX. POSIX evolves, partially based on our inputs. I don't see the deprecation of [1][2] on the Austin Group's agenda so far [3]. Bruno [1] https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799.2018edition/basedefs/utmpx.h.html [2] https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799.2018edition/functions/endutxent.html [3] https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view_all_bug_page.php