On Fri, 2011-12-16 at 00:15 +0000, brian m. carlson wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 02:15:11PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Svante Signell writes ("[Fwd: [ISC-Bugs #25979] What happened to the dhcp
> > patch in ISC-Bugs #24697 (Debian Bug #616290)?]"):
> > > Dear Debian/Hurd, GNU/Hurd and Debian-devel people. This arrived today.
> > > Any ideas on how to proceed? Is it possible to create a Hurd-specific
> > > fork of the latest ISC-DHCP release? DHCP is an essential package in the
> > > Debian Installer.
> >
> > I went and read the Debian bug report. The difficulty seems to be
> > with the patch "fix_ftbfs4hurd.dpatch". I have to say that on reading
> > that patch I understood upstream's reluctance. I don't think it looks
> > to me like a correct and appropriate fix for build portability
> > problems.
>
> Hurd doesn't support PATH_MAX. So trying to allocate memory based on
> PATH_MAX isn't going to work on Hurd. However, with glibc (and with
> POSIX 1003.1-2008) we can simply mark the destination buffer to realpath
> as NULL and the appropriate amount of memory will be automatically
> allocated. Not all systems support this, though.
>
> I cannot comment on the remainder of the patch, but the PATH_MAX issue
> is a pretty common one for Hurd, and assuming PATH_MAX is a compile-time
> constant is a bad idea anyway, since it's not allowed by POSIX.Indeed, for any system with an extensible VFS it makes a lot more sense to implement only pathconf() than to specify a constant value that covers all possible filesystems. But as you say there's a lot of software that depends on that constant. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Computers are not intelligent. They only think they are.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
