Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ames!oliveb!sun!gorodish!guy
From: guy@gorodish.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: File System Kudzu
Message-ID: <15794@sun.uucp>
Date: Sat, 28-Mar-87 05:56:01 EST
Article-I.D.: sun.15794
Posted: Sat Mar 28 05:56:01 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 29-Mar-87 08:57:44 EST
References: <4888@brl-adm.ARPA> <14909@sun.uucp> <708@mcgill-vision.UUCP>
Sender: news@sun.uucp
Lines: 27

> Given just the getpw* functions, there's no way to change the passwd
> database, which is clearly necessary for any real system.

Yes.  But is it necessary to provide a *portable* way to write
applications to change it?  You can change the UAF under VMS, but you
can't do it by using the same technique that the "passwd" command
uses (I don't know whether there is a documented programmer's
interface that lets you change the UAF or whether you'd have to use
DEC's commands to do so).  Heck, you can't even quite change the
password file under *4.3BSD* by using the same technique that the
"passwd" command on other flavors of UNIX uses - you also have to
update the DBM database.

> Don't just say that providing chsh, passwd, and chfn programs (or
> equivalents) is enough; it isn't.  We wanted a chsh/chfn/passwd suite
> of programs with functionality somewhat different from the provided
> versions.  It is unacceptable to be unable to do this sort of thing.

You may be able to do it; you may just have to write different code
to do it on different systems.  There is a tradeoff here; by
specifying more characteristics of the POSIX interface, you increase
the number of applications that can be written to the POSIX
interface, and thus the number of portable applications - but you
also *de*crease the number of possible implementations of the POSIX
interface.  Is it worth reducing the number of possible POSIX
interface implementations by, say, 10% in order to increase the
number of portable applications by .1%?