DragonFly kernel List (threaded) for 2003-08
Re: Usernames > 16 characters
Matthew Dillon wrote:
:Any chance Dragonfly will handle usernames > 16 characters? Or is this
:something that many people feel should be done with something like PAM?
Well, you have to ask yourself "larger then 16 characters for what
purpose" ? If for email purposes then the appropriate avenue is to
create mail aliases, for example. An account name as an operating
system tracked entity should not have an unbounded size, otherwise
it becomes too ungainly to administer and report on (in logs and so
That said, it is obvious that 8 was too small and so it was bumped up
to 16. The question is would it be reasonable to bump it up to, say,
32? I can't imagine making it larger then 32 but I can see some valid
arguments to going from 16 to 32 and perhaps bumping up the hostname
field in utmp.h at the same time.
I think bumping both values would make sense. I remember punting on a
migration from IRIX to BSD 3.X because of the 8 character username specs.
I can see a need for both to be larger. I can't see the username be >
Are you referring to UT_HOSTSIZE ? That should probably be 32 also.
Also, should MAXLOGNAME either be specific tied to UT_NAMESIZE? Or is
there a POSIX reason for the seperation?