From: Rocky Bernstein Date: 2009-01-29T23:27:58+09:00 Subject: [ruby-core:21670] Re: [Bug #1068] Ruby Cannot Handle Some UIDs --000e0cd6a8acd65e6f04619feddd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 9:04 AM, James Gray wrote: > On Jan 29, 2009, at 7:57 AM, Rocky Bernstein wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:33 AM, James Gray >> wrote: >> On Jan 29, 2009, at 3:43 AM, Urabe Shyouhei wrote: >> >> Ondrej Bilka wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 08:53:38AM +0100, Nobuyoshi Nakada wrote: >> Hi, >> >> At Thu, 29 Jan 2009 01:23:48 +0900, >> Ondrej Bilka wrote in [ruby-core:21642]: >> Any reason why not handle UID and GID as signed? >> Because they are defined as unsigned on that platform. >> This can be ignored. It would only display incrorectly UIDs > 2000000000 >> >> Out of curiousity, on what basis you can believe that display (and ignore >> your >> header instead)? I'd wather ignore that display and believe what header >> says if I had such OS. >> >> Well, the OS is using negative UID's. >> >> I am not sure one can make that assertion. >> > > I feel pretty confident in my assertion. Just to be totally clear, it was: > my OS is using negative UID's and Ruby isn't handling that well. The first > half is proven by a look at my /etc/passwd, where I do see negative UID's. That doesn't prove that the OS is using negative uids, just that programs that process /etc/passwd allow a negative uid in that configuration file. If such processing programs are written in C as they probably are, there's a conversion going on. So the brokenness could be in your OS, not Ruby ;-) > I feel this thread proves the second half. > > James Edward Gray II > > > --000e0cd6a8acd65e6f04619feddd Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 9:04 AM, James G= ray <jame= s@grayproductions.net> wrote:
On Jan 29, 2009, at 7:57 AM, Rocky Bernstein wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:33 AM, James Gray <james@grayproductions.net> wrote= :
On Jan 29, 2009, at 3:43 AM, Urabe Shyouhei wrote:

Ondrej Bilka wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 08:53:38AM +0100, Nobuyoshi Nakada wrote:
Hi,

At Thu, 29 Jan 2009 01:23:48 +0900,
Ondrej Bilka wrote in [ruby-core:21642]:
Any reason why not handle UID and GID as signed?
Because they are defined as unsigned on that platform.
This can be ignored. It would only display incrorectly UIDs > 2000000000=

Out of curiousity, on what basis you can believe that display (and ignore y= our
header instead)?  I'd wather ignore that display and believe what = header says if I had such OS.

Well, the OS is using negative UID's.

I am not sure one can make that assertion.

I feel pretty confident in my assertion.  Just to be totally clear, it= was:  my OS is using negative UID's and Ruby isn't handling t= hat well.  The first half is proven by a look at my /etc/passwd, where= I do see negative UID's.

That doesn't prove that the OS is using negative uids, just th= at programs that process /etc/passwd allow a negative uid in that configura= tion file. If such processing programs are written in C as they probably ar= e, there's a conversion going on. So the brokenness could be in your OS= , not Ruby ;-)
 
&= nbsp;I feel this thread proves the second half.

James Edward Gray II



--000e0cd6a8acd65e6f04619feddd--