Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
X-Authentication-Warning: mch2ws2.mechanik.tuwien.ac.at: Host mch2pc28.mechanik.tuwien.ac.at [128.130.47.58] claimed to be tuwien.ac.at
Message-ID: <3B2F755F.30003@tuwien.ac.at>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 17:53:03 +0200
From: Alois Steindl <Alois.Steindl+e325 AT tuwien DOT ac DOT at>
Reply-To: Alois.Steindl+e325 AT tuwien DOT ac DOT at
Organization: Institut =?ISO-8859-1?Q?f=FCr?= Mechanik, TU Wien
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux 2.2.17-14 i686; en-US; rv:0.9) Gecko/20010507
X-Accept-Language: de-AT, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: 1.1.8: Too large entry in termcap file
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Tue, 19 Jun 2001 10:03:03 -0400, Christopher Faylor <cgf at redhat 
dot com> wrote:


> Sorry. I misread your email. I thought that you were providing new
> information. I said that the entry from Red Hat did not overflow. I
> thought that you had tested the Red Hat linux case and were providing
> your findings. I was mistaken. You just thought it necessary to hammer
> your point home again.
> 

Sometimes it seems necessary to re-iterate statements until they are 
captured. Seems we are done finally on this topic.


> Too bad that your concern does not go as far as providing a patch.
> 

My motivation is quite low now. And I didn't introduce any 
incompatibilities.


> As I mentioned, when I looked at the termcap entry, I did not see any
> easy way to reduce it. Since there are probably scores of programs
> using this termcap entry, eliminating pieces from it is not something
> that I would undertake lightly. I could end up removing functionality
> from programs which are relying on it. These programs have already
> apparently increased their buffer sizes.
> 

_I_ would prefer the safe method to the functional one. Of course the 
situation is not easy now: If you return to the ?safe? buffer length, 
functionality might get lost. Otherwise people, who just try to install 
programs from the net, might experience program faults which are not 
easy to resolve. Maybe the topic should have been discussed among the 
developers before the compatibility was broken. To me it seems that 
there is no type of quality control enabled: whoever thinks, that some 
feature is important, includes that into the program.


> Maybe we can stop talking about this now? Or do you want to be outraged
> some more?
> 
> cgf
> 
I second that. But I remember only outraged statements from your side, 

which I didn't like, of course. At least you are aware of the problem now.


mfg
Alois



-- 
Alois Steindl,                  Tel.: +43 (1) 58801 / 32558
Inst. for Mechanics II,         Fax.: +43 (1) 58801 / 32598
Vienna University of Technology,
A-1040 Wiedner Hauptstr. 8-10   Email: Alois.Steindl+e325 AT tuwien DOT ac DOT at


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple