jcring at switch
Feb 6, 1997, 1:18 PM
Post #2 of 2
At 02:18 PM 2/6/97 -0500, Paul Fox wrote:
Re: getpwnam() patch available (was Re: Hard coded UIDs revisited)
[In reply to]
>>> What *are* our goals anyway? I think that's the real problem.
>>> Various people have different unarticulated goals.
>> I think most of "us" would like qmail not to go its own path in this
>> area. When it wants to know the uid for a username, it should use
>> getpwnam() at run time, just like every other program. Then Red Hat
>> can determine what uids qmail uses the normal way: it can edit
>i mentioned a few days ago that i had patched qmail to use getpwnam().
>i've been running it this way for a few days now with no problems. (which
>may only mean that someone has now broken in and robbed me blind, without
>me even knowing. :-)
Hm, what's the chance that this patch, once looked over by people, can be
incorporated into the distrib. as an option? It appears many, for various
reasons, want/need this dynamic lookup option, and yet some (well, at least
me, anyway) are more concerned about the speed of QMAILthan the hassle of
dealing with hardcoded UIDs.
Of course, if this happens, will the next discussion be on which to make
the default :)
John C. Ring, Jr.
jcring [at] switch
Union Switch & Signal Inc.