This is the mail archive of the
cygwin
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: get rid of getpwent? (Was: cygwin-1.7.28 getpwent header declaration changes ?)
- From: Andrey Repin <anrdaemon at yandex dot ru>
- To: Corinna Vinschen <cygwin at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 15:51:29 +0400
- Subject: Re: get rid of getpwent? (Was: cygwin-1.7.28 getpwent header declaration changes ?)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <31347914-BB4F-4039-984B-731B6C72F903 at etr-usa dot com> <52F7AEC5 dot 5090205 at tiscali dot co dot uk> <8B7B5FE0-7413-4358-BA8A-E0B6E0B17653 at etr-usa dot com> <52F8B50E dot 7040307 at lysator dot liu dot se> <52F92D58 dot 9030408 at etr-usa dot com> <52F95D1D dot 4050108 at tiscali dot co dot uk> <4510121021 dot 20140211062515 at mtu-net dot ru> <52FAB14C dot 8060800 at tiscali dot co dot uk> <52FABAF5 dot 2060701 at etr-usa dot com> <52FAD730 dot 9090507 at redhat dot com> <20140212090804 dot GM2821 at calimero dot vinschen dot de>
- Reply-to: Andrey Repin <cygwin at cygwin dot com>
Greetings, Corinna Vinschen!
> Either way, implementing a full getpwent requires to return the local
> users, the users of the primary domain, and the users of all trusted
> domains. I know of domains with 200K users and there are probably
> bigger ones. How long should a search take when a user presses <TAB>
> after the ~? And then, shall the process running the getpwent actually
> cache all of them? This seems really excessive.
IMO, such practice should be actually discouraged. I mean, listing ALL users
of ALL... well, you got it. For the reasons you mentioned above - the possible
results of such operation are largely unpredictable.
--
WBR,
Andrey Repin (anrdaemon@yandex.ru) 12.02.2014, <15:49>
Sorry for my terrible english...
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple