Re: 64-bit time_t and __WORDSIZE_TIME64_COMPAT32

[Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu>]

On 4/11/23 23:55, Thorsten Kukuk via Libc-alpha wrote:

> At least "pinky" does not read wtmp but utmp.

Oh, you're right, so it's just "who", "users" and "uptime". And "users" 
isn't that useful for reading wtmp, and a lot of people use procps-ng 
"uptime" rather than coreutils "uptime", so "who" is the biggest problem 
here.

> there are better ways to find out

I'm sure there are, but the problem is that users might be relying on 
these older ways of finding out.

> I don't understand for what this should be good?

People wrote shell scripts before "last" became common, or didn't know 
about "last", or wanted to be portable to old systems that lack "last", 
or whatever.

> That's the equivalent of "last". Since there will be no wtmp anymore, you
> have to use "last" (gives you the same informations) or we have to
> implement wtmpdb support into who. Don't know if this makes really
> sense.

If you want to decommission this coreutils functionality, I suggest 
taking it up with the coreutils maintainers - that's a better spot than 
this mailing list.