Re: Y2038, glibc and utmp/utmpx on 64bit architectures

[Bruno Haible <bruno@clisp.org>]

Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
> > I really don’t think it is appropriate to outright remove POSIX standard
> > interfaces from Linux, replacing them with non-standard systemd APIs.
> 
> Nobody wants to remove the current utmp code (ok, not quite correct,
> glibc developers plan to remove it from glibc, as it will stop working
> in a few years) and feel free to convert all the code out there to use
> the utmpx and not utmp interface.

I don't understand: Do the glibc developers plan to remove the utmpx
interface as well (together with utmp interface)?

If no, then
  - Why does your blog post https://github.com/thkukuk/utmpx/blob/main/Y2038.md
    say "It looks like the glibc developers don't want to solve this problem
    but instead deprecate the utmp.h/utmpx.h/lastlog.h interface."?
  - What about the '#if __WORDSIZE_TIME64_COMPAT32' in
    /usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/bits/utmpx.h ? Isn't it as nasty as the
    '#if __WORDSIZE_TIME64_COMPAT32' in
    /usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/bits/utmp.h ?

If yes, then
  - What is the point of your suggestion to "use the utmpx and not utmp
    interface", above?
  - Since there is no "FUTURE DIRECTIONS" in POSIX
    https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799.2018edition/functions/endutxent.html
    will the utmpx interface get deprecated in POSIX, or stay as it is?
    Is the Austin Group already involved?

Bruno