On Mon, Aug 31, 2026 at 02:48:51PM +0100, João Pedro Malhado wrote: > On Mon, Aug 31, 2026 at 09:18:06AM -0400, Nikolas Nyby wrote: > > Thanks for looking into this. It looks like this was addressed upstream > > here by the Dillo maintainer: > > > > https://git.dillo-browser.org/dillo/commit/?id=b43ab26e81a1e399e3cb148b972a284518aa4d39 > > > > If this simpler upstream patch doesn't fully resolve the Hurd build > > failure we can certainly resolve that in a custom debian patch as well. > > Even then, these patches could be forwarded upstream. > > That commit will make the code build on the hurd, but it is not the preferred > way to handle this type of issues, and dynamic allocation is preferred > https://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/faq/foo_max > > Would upstream consider a different approach? >
Oh interesting - yes, I think upstream would be very open to your alternative patch here seeing as this is actually best practice, though maybe not as convenient, as pointed out here: https://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/faq/foo_max I suggest opening a discussion on this on the dillo-dev mailing list here: https://lists.mailman3.com/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/ With your proposed patch.
