Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 11:52:29 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: For masochists: the leap o faith Message-ID: <20031115165229.GA3296@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <3FB4D81C DOT 6010808 AT cygwin DOT com> <3FB53BAE DOT 3000803 AT cygwin DOT com> <20031114220708 DOT GA26100 AT redhat DOT com> <3FB55BCE DOT 8030304 AT cygwin DOT com> <20031115044347 DOT GA29583 AT redhat DOT com> <1068883645 DOT 1109 DOT 122 DOT camel AT localhost> <20031115164534 DOT GB3039 AT redhat DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031115164534.GB3039@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i 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/