[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [screen-devel] Remarks on the patch for long login names (was: Re: G
From: |
Axel Beckert |
Subject: |
Re: [screen-devel] Remarks on the patch for long login names (was: Re: GNU Screen v.4.2.0) |
Date: |
Tue, 22 Apr 2014 19:30:01 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) |
Hi Amadeusz,
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 06:32:07PM +0200, Amadeusz Sławiński wrote:
> > * 32 seems a little bit short to me. Why not use what the system
> > provides? According to https://bugs.debian.org/560231 at least on
> > Linux there is LOGIN_NAME_MAX defined in
> > /usr/include/bits/local_lim.h which seems to default to 256
> > nowadays. I think screen should support at least that on Linux then,
> > too.
> >
>
> Ah, I based my value on utmp entries
> bits/utmp.h:#define UT_NAMESIZE 32
> bits/utmp.h: char ut_user[UT_NAMESIZE]; /* Username. */
> bits/utmpx.h:#define __UT_NAMESIZE 32
> bits/utmpx.h: char ut_user[__UT_NAMESIZE]; /* Username. */
Interesting that there are different values for that kind of data
around on the same kind of system. :-)
> Well, let's just use 256, it will probably allow for use with most
> crazy login schemes.
... at least for the next few decades. ;-)
> > I hence propose to check if LOGIN_NAME_MAX is defined and if so, use
> > that, otherwise use a fixed value, maybe 32 to be on the save side
> > for ancient OS. The patch proposed in
> > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/screen-devel/2011-05/msg00000.html
> > (see also below) proposed to use 50, but I prefer numbers which are
> > powers of two. (Debian uses 50 currently, too, though.)
>
> In previous mail Jürgen suggested that it's bad idea to have build time
> changing defines in struct msg.
Ah, right, we should care about the MSG_VERSION bump. Good point!
Then again, this also means that this change will need a MSG_VERSION,
right? Which again is probably a bad thing to do in a
micro-/bugfix-update (i.e. just incrementing the last number of the
version). Humm. Sounds like a small dilemma to be, as I'd be happy to
see that change in Screen soon, too.
According to Semantic Versioning (see http://semver.org/),
non-backwards-compatible (i.e. API) changes validate respectively
require a bump of the major number -- which is not what is planned to
do in the screen-v4 branch. :-/
And no, I don't urge you to use Semantic Versioning as defined on
http://semver.org/. I just thought about what version number a new
release with MSG_VERSION bump should have and semver.org is always a
nice place to compare with. In Semantic Versioning I miss the notion
of large user-visible changes which are more than just
backwards-incompatible API changes. Maybe my semantics are on a
different axis...
> I will hardcode them.
Fine for me, if they are that large. :-)
JFTR: Debian currently uses 40 characters for the TERM length (i.e.
doubled the old value), but the case reported in Debian should also
works with 32 characters: "rxvt-unicode-256color" (21 characters, also
reported at Savannah at https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?30880)
So I consider 32 characters as "probably large enough for now".
> > That last line needs to be changed to 32 (or LOGIN_NAME_MAX or
> > MAX_USERNAME_LEN or whatever), too, because the whole #ifdef reads
> > as follows:
>
> Yes, thanks for checking.
Thanks for caring!
With your last commit I can already drop two patches of the Debian
package. Yay! :-)
But I'm looking forward to 4.2.1 anyway, independent of a MSG_VERSION
bump or not. :-)
Kind regards, Axel
--
/~\ Plain Text Ribbon Campaign | Axel Beckert
\ / Say No to HTML in E-Mail and News | address@hidden (Mail)
X See http://www.nonhtmlmail.org/campaign.html | address@hidden (Mail+Jabber)
/ \ I love long mails: http://email.is-not-s.ms/ | http://noone.org/abe/ (Web)
- Re: [screen-devel] GNU Screen v.4.2.0, (continued)
- Re: [screen-devel] GNU Screen v.4.2.0, Jeroen Roovers, 2014/04/18
- Re: [screen-devel] GNU Screen v.4.2.0, Jim Mahood, 2014/04/18
- Re: [screen-devel] GNU Screen v.4.2.0, Amadeusz Sławiński, 2014/04/18
- Re: [screen-devel] GNU Screen v.4.2.0, Jürgen Weigert, 2014/04/18
- Re: [screen-devel] GNU Screen v.4.2.0, Amadeusz Sławiński, 2014/04/22
- [screen-devel] Remarks on the patch for long login names (was: Re: GNU Screen v.4.2.0), Axel Beckert, 2014/04/22
- Re: [screen-devel] Remarks on the patch for long login names (was: Re: GNU Screen v.4.2.0), Amadeusz Sławiński, 2014/04/22
- Re: [screen-devel] Remarks on the patch for long login names (was: Re: GNU Screen v.4.2.0),
Axel Beckert <=
Re: [screen-devel] GNU Screen v.4.2.0, Jostein Berntsen, 2014/04/24
- Re: [screen-devel] GNU Screen v.4.2.0, Jürgen Weigert, 2014/04/25
- Message not available
- Re: [screen-devel] GNU Screen v.4.2.0, Jostein Berntsen, 2014/04/25
- Re: [screen-devel] GNU Screen v.4.2.0, Jürgen Weigert, 2014/04/25
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Re: [screen-devel] GNU Screen v.4.2.0, Jostein Berntsen, 2014/04/25
- Re: [screen-devel] GNU Screen v.4.2.0, Jürgen Weigert, 2014/04/25
- Message not available
- Re: [screen-devel] GNU Screen v.4.2.0, Jostein Berntsen, 2014/04/25
- Re: [screen-devel] GNU Screen v.4.2.0, Jürgen Weigert, 2014/04/25
- Re: [screen-devel] GNU Screen v.4.2.0, Amadeusz Sławiński, 2014/04/25
- Re: [screen-devel] GNU Screen v.4.2.0, Jostein Berntsen, 2014/04/25