Testing of recent commits

[Darren Tucker]

Ben Lindstrom wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, Darren Tucker wrote:
[snip]
> > 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.

You're right that the code as it currently stands is.  What I was getting
at was that (AFAIK, I've never seen a Trusted 10.26 box) HP-UX 10.2x has
both getspnam and getspanam so you could use both if it made sense (eg one
for trusted and one for non-trusted).

> 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.

The issue was redefinition of spw, right?  I just renamed it.

-- 
Darren Tucker (dtucker at zip.com.au)
GPG key 8FF4FA69 / D9A3 86E9 7EEE AF4B B2D4  37C9 C982 80C7 8FF4 FA69
    Good judgement comes with experience. Unfortunately, the experience
usually comes from bad judgement.