Remaining things to remove mostly per the 80/20 rule hga@xxxxxx 11 Aug 2019 14:35 UTC
Re: Remaining things to remove mostly per the 80/20 rule Lassi Kortela 11 Aug 2019 15:10 UTC
Re: Remaining things to remove mostly per the 80/20 rule Lassi Kortela 11 Aug 2019 15:15 UTC
gecos field naming (was Re: Remaining things to remove mostly per the 80/20 rule) hga@xxxxxx 11 Aug 2019 15:28 UTC
Re: gecos field naming (was Re: Remaining things to remove mostly per the 80/20 rule) Lassi Kortela 11 Aug 2019 15:48 UTC
Re: gecos field naming (was Re: Remaining things to remove mostly per the 80/20 rule) Lassi Kortela 11 Aug 2019 16:02 UTC
gecos parser implementation Lassi Kortela 11 Aug 2019 17:30 UTC
Re: gecos parser implementation John Cowan 12 Aug 2019 04:06 UTC
Re: gecos field naming (was Re: Remaining things to remove mostly per the 80/20 rule) Lassi Kortela 11 Aug 2019 16:32 UTC
Re: Remaining things to remove mostly per the 80/20 rule hga@xxxxxx 11 Aug 2019 19:27 UTC
Re: Remaining things to remove mostly per the 80/20 rule Lassi Kortela 12 Aug 2019 12:02 UTC
Re: Remaining things to remove mostly per the 80/20 rule John Cowan 12 Aug 2019 04:04 UTC
Re: Remaining things to remove mostly per the 80/20 rule Lassi Kortela 12 Aug 2019 11:52 UTC
Re: Remaining things to remove mostly per the 80/20 rule hga@xxxxxx 12 Aug 2019 12:08 UTC
Re: Remaining things to remove mostly per the 80/20 rule Lassi Kortela 12 Aug 2019 12:20 UTC
Re: Remaining things to remove mostly per the 80/20 rule John Cowan 12 Aug 2019 13:14 UTC
Re: Remaining things to remove mostly per the 80/20 rule Lassi Kortela 12 Aug 2019 13:44 UTC
Timezone files Lassi Kortela 12 Aug 2019 14:00 UTC
Re: Remaining things to remove mostly per the 80/20 rule hga@xxxxxx 12 Aug 2019 14:07 UTC
Re: Remaining things to remove mostly per the 80/20 rule John Cowan 12 Aug 2019 14:42 UTC
Re: Remaining things to remove mostly per the 80/20 rule hga@xxxxxx 12 Aug 2019 15:08 UTC
Re: Remaining things to remove mostly per the 80/20 rule John Cowan 12 Aug 2019 16:19 UTC
What is your timezone??? (was Re: Remaining things to remove mostly per the 80/20 rule) hga@xxxxxx 12 Aug 2019 20:49 UTC
Re: What is your timezone??? (was Re: Remaining things to remove mostly per the 80/20 rule) Göran Weinholt 12 Aug 2019 21:53 UTC
Re: What is your timezone??? (was Re: Remaining things to remove mostly per the 80/20 rule) hga@xxxxxx 12 Aug 2019 22:06 UTC
Re: What is your timezone??? (was Re: Remaining things to remove mostly per the 80/20 rule) John Cowan 12 Aug 2019 22:18 UTC
GECOS field parsing Lassi Kortela 17 Aug 2019 08:51 UTC
Re: GECOS field parsing Lassi Kortela 17 Aug 2019 09:11 UTC
Re: GECOS field parsing Lassi Kortela 17 Aug 2019 09:16 UTC
Re: GECOS field parsing Lassi Kortela 17 Aug 2019 09:35 UTC
Re: GECOS field parsing Lassi Kortela 17 Aug 2019 09:55 UTC
Re: Remaining things to remove mostly per the 80/20 rule hga@xxxxxx 12 Aug 2019 12:34 UTC
Re: Remaining things to remove mostly per the 80/20 rule John Cowan 12 Aug 2019 03:58 UTC
Re: Remaining things to remove mostly per the 80/20 rule hga@xxxxxx 12 Aug 2019 11:52 UTC
Re: Remaining things to remove mostly per the 80/20 rule Lassi Kortela 12 Aug 2019 12:39 UTC
Re: Remaining things to remove mostly per the 80/20 rule hga@xxxxxx 12 Aug 2019 13:03 UTC

Re: Remaining things to remove mostly per the 80/20 rule hga@xxxxxx 11 Aug 2019 19:27 UTC

>From: Lassi Kortela <xxxxxx@lassi.io>
>Date: Sunday, August 11, 2019 10:10 AM

>> user-login-name, which as Lassi notes, "is reliably accomplished
>> via (user-info:name (user-info (user-uid)))", that the passwd
>> database is the source of truth, but the routines that query it can
>> be overridden with e.g. a LD_PRELOAD hack.  John agreed
>> user-login-name should go, I will add a note pointing out Lassi's
>> alternative.

> Thanks! (getenv "USER") is the other possible route. Forcing users
> to pick one of those two manual routes instead of having an abstract
> (user-login-name) procedure makes things more explicit.

I hang on to your every word ^_^.

R7RS has SRFI-98's (get-environment-variable name), but per a check
just now I don't think any previous Scheme standard has one.  So it
looks like I should add mention of the above, but specifying both
these sources and "(get-environment-variable "USER")".

> [ Windows. ]

>> I originally advocated against all of 3.6 User and group database
>> access, user-info and group-info, but there are solid arguments for
>> them including the above observation by Lassi.

> We could also put all the user/group database procedures in their own
> SRFI. I think they are pretty well isolated from other OS interfaces.

I don't think there's a positive payoff in the suggested proliferation
of SRFIs.  They're isolated, but they still require jumping down to
the world of C, and might as well be bundled with this base POSIX SRFI.

> Things that deal with user/group _numbers_ pertaining to the current
> process, such as (user-uid) et.al., should probably be in the same
> SRFI as the process and signal stuff.

They're very useful at this base POSIX SRFI level for e.g. logging, so
I think they should stay here, and have the processes SRFI(s) require
at least some specific subset of procedures in this SRFI.

> [ Various, including the gecos passwd struct field. ]

- Harold