Testing of recent commits

[Ben Lindstrom]

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, Darren Tucker wrote:

> Ben Lindstrom wrote:
> > I could have swore I was told it was not required, but I don't have
> > HP/UX.  And my initial check in comments actually elude to HP/UX
> > maybe problematic.
>
> That was just a typo, fixed in rev 1.2.
>
> > However, with your change we should do:
> >
> >                 pw_password = spw->sp_pwdp;
> > -# endif
> > -# if defined(HAVE_GETPWANAM) && !defined(DISABLE_SHADOW)
> > +# elif defined(HAVE_GETPWANAM) && !defined(DISABLE_SHADOW)
> >         struct passwd_adjunct *spw;
> >
> > Because they are all exclusive cases.  None of them should ever overlap.
>
> I'm not sure they are exclusive.  Since we removed getprpwnam in favour of
> getspnam on HP-UX, I think we're currently aiming for this or equivalent
> on HP-UX 10.x:
>

Umm.. They are exclusive. You can't have HAVE_SHADOW_H (without
DISABLE_SHADOW) and HAVE_SECUREWARE set without compile errors.  So yes
they are exclusive and your patch does change that fact.

And as far as I can see as of 1.5 the patch that was posted that added
!HAVE_SECUREWARE solves an existing problem.

Off hand I didn't see how your patch changed that issue.

- Ben