Re: [gdm-list] GDM utmp support

["William Jon McCann" <mccann jhu edu>]

On 10/18/07, William Jon McCann <mccann jhu edu> wrote:
> On 10/16/07, Brian Cameron <Brian Cameron sun com> wrote:
> >
> > Jon:
> >
> > Attached please find a patch which fixes the utmp/wtmp processing quite
> > a bit.  When you forked D-Bus, this code was still under a lot of
> > development and it took quite some time to get it right.  The stable
> > GDM code has been reworked so it better supports how utmp/wtmp works
> > on a variety of platforms.
> >
> > In summary, the following changes are in the patch:
> >
> > + configure.ac wasn't properly setting HAVE_GETUTXENT, etc. because it
> >    was using AC_CHECK_FUNC instead of AC_CHECK_FUNCS.  With this change
> >    it works properly.  Also, need to check for logwtmp for FreeBSD
> >    support.
> >
> > + The previous code was only doing wtmp/btmp processing.  This patch
> >    adds utmp proccessing.  Also, now utmpx.h is used in preference
> >    to utmp.h if found on the system, so systems using extended utmp
> >    are better supported.
> >
> > + This code uses #if checks to better ensure that the code compiles
> >    across all platforms.  For example, will use UT_NAME instead of
> >    UT_USER if UT_USER isn't present on the system.  Also added back
> >    login(), logout(), and logwtmp() #ifdef's needed by FreeBSD.
> >
> > + Support ut_tv or ut_time, based on what is supported on the system.
> >    Also support setting ut_syslen if supported on the system.
> >
> > + ut_type should be set to DEAD_PROCESS on logout.  The previous code
> >    was always setting it to USER_PROCESS.
> >
> > + ut_id is now set to x11_display_name and ut_host is now set to
> >    hostname and x11_display_name or just x11_display_name if hostname
> >    is not set.  This matches what is in stable GDM.  Unless there is
> >    a good reason, I think we should probably try to stay consistent
> >    with what people are currently using with GDM 2.20.
> >
> >    If we think we should set ut_host or ut_id differently, then we
> >    should discuss if this should impact the GDM 2.20 code, I guess.
>
> Cool.  Thanks for doing this.  I've applied this as is.  We can tweak
> it as necessary.

A few subtle fixes.
http://svn.gnome.org/viewvc/gdm?view=revision&revision=5378


The next thing we need to do is clean up this code.  There is really
no need for all these ifdefs.  And it probably belongs in its own file
too.  Vte has a good example of how to do this more cleanly:
http://svn.gnome.org/viewvc/vte/trunk/gnome-pty-helper/gnome-utmp.c?view=markup

Jon