Mail Archives: cygwin/2003/11/15/11:52:56
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 11:45:34AM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 07:07:26PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>>On Sat, 2003-11-15 at 15:43, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>>Yes, I've already (obviously?) been to SUSv3. I wasn't talking about
>>>standards. I was talking about common practice.
>>>
>>>If you have a common practice web site that you want to show me then
>>>that might be a convincing argument. Otherwise, I'll have to fall back
>>>on my personal UNIX experience.
>>
>>http://zebra.fh-weingarten.de/~maxi/html/mplayer-dev-eng/2003-04/msg00600.html
>>
>>Part of a thread on this in another project. Seems like the hurd
>>follows the no-PATH_MAX, use pathconf() always approach. Which means
>>that everything thats portable to the hurd, will Do The Right Thing, if
>>we eliminate the PATH_MAX and MAXPATHLEN defines. In my digging, I
>>found that PATH_MAX, if defined, MUST be the largest path length
>>possible. Presumably thats so that programs with static buffers won't
>>run into trouble.
>
>I mention "common practice" and you point me at a discussion which talks
>about the Hurd??? The Hurd?????????????????????????????????????????????
>
>Wow.
Btw, I've moved this discussion here from cygwin-patches because we are
talking about a change which could impact a number of people. Robert is
submitting patches which increase the maximum path length for NT-class
systems.
My concern is that PATH_MAX will be increased for this change. It will
no longer reflect the win32 api MAX_PATH value and I was wondering if
that would cause problems for existing applications.
I thought the cygwin mailing list would be a wider audience for this
type of thing than cygwin-patches, especially since no one is offering
opinions in cygwin-patches.
cgf
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -