From: Rocky Bernstein Date: 2009-01-30T01:17:06+09:00 Subject: [ruby-core:21672] Re: [Bug #1068] Ruby Cannot Handle Some UIDs --000e0cd487ca4c818f0461a1747b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit One small edit I'm sorry I can resist since after all this *is* a programming language group. On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Rocky Bernstein wrote: > > > 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 ;-) > What I meant by bringing C in here is that if there's an OS brokenness it could be inspired by a brokenness in C by using such conversions. ("brokenness" was your term.) > > >> I feel this thread proves the second half. >> >> James Edward Gray II >> >> >> > --000e0cd487ca4c818f0461a1747b Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable One small edit I'm sorry I can resist since after all this *is* a progr= amming language group.

On Thu, Jan 29, 20= 09 at 9:27 AM, Rocky Bernstein <rocky.bernstein@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Jan 29, 200= 9 at 9:04 AM, James Gray <james@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 that programs that process /etc/passwd allo= w a negative uid in that configuration file. If such processing programs ar= e written in C as they probably are, there's a conversion going on. So = the brokenness could be in your OS, not Ruby ;-)

What I meant by bringing C in here is tha= t if there's an OS brokenness it could be inspired by a brokenness in C= by using such conversions. ("brokenness" was your term.)

I feel this thread proves the second half.

James Edward Gray II

--000e0cd487ca4c818f0461a1747b--