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/
