On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Russ Allbery wrote: > Thanks to a lot of work by the Hurd folks, there's quite a bit less than > there used to be. :) > > I haven't looked at the patch in this thread, but most of the time that > I've seen PATH_MAX used in software, it's indicated a design flaw in an > interface: use of static buffers for file paths rather than adjusting to > arbitrary length of file names. You can arguably "fix" it by defining > PATH_MAX to something arbitrary, but usually the better fix is to go back > and fix the incorrect choice of API to use a caller-provided buffer or to > do memory allocation instead.
I tend to see upstreams defining their own PATH_MAX rather than calling pathconf. Perhaps there needs to be a lintian warning about that. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAKTje6GBF=vyb-e4dsotyq8h2plwdf5hs8u14rh+a0abpvd...@mail.gmail.com
