From nobody@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Aug 15 08:14:53 1999
Return-Path: <nobody@FreeBSD.ORG>
Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 32767)
	id 078361531E; Sun, 15 Aug 1999 08:14:52 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <19990815151452.078361531E@hub.freebsd.org>
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1999 08:14:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: pi@LF.net
Sender: nobody@FreeBSD.ORG
To: freebsd-gnats-submit@freebsd.org
Subject: systemwide username too short (currently 16 char, should be 64 or so)
X-Send-Pr-Version: www-1.0

>Number:         13152
>Category:       misc
>Synopsis:       systemwide username too short (currently 16 char, should be 64 or so)
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       non-critical
>Priority:       low
>Responsible:    freebsd-bugs
>State:          closed
>Quarter:        
>Keywords:       
>Date-Required:  
>Class:          change-request
>Submitter-Id:   current-users
>Arrival-Date:   Sun Aug 15 08:20:00 PDT 1999
>Closed-Date:    Mon Dec 20 09:04:53 PST 1999
>Last-Modified:  Mon Dec 20 09:08:46 PST 1999
>Originator:     Kurt Jaeger
>Release:        3.x
>Organization:
LF.net GmbH
>Environment:
reeBSD mail.s.netic.de 3.1-RELEASE FreeBSD 3.1-RELEASE #0: Mon Jun 21 15:57:12 CEST 1999     pi@mail.s.netic.de:/usr/src/sys/compile/MAIL  i386

>Description:
Deploying a more flexible scheme for automatic user and group
administration, the size of the MAXLOGNAME and UT_NAMESIZE value
is seen as a limiting factor.
>How-To-Repeat:
If a system is modified to cope with long usernames, many
applications need to be recompiled -- this becomes impractical
if a larger number of systems need to be maintained.
>Fix:
I suggest to change the value for the next major release of fbsd
to something like 64 (or larger 8-).

>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:
State-Changed-From-To: open->closed 
State-Changed-By: phantom 
State-Changed-When: Mon Dec 20 09:04:53 PST 1999 
State-Changed-Why:  
You did not provide any real example. My experience shown that 16 chars is *really* 
enough. Anyway aliases(5) is your friend. 
>Unformatted:
