Re: gputils: FTBFS on hurd-i386 (for review)

2017-04-07 Thread Guillem Jover
On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 16:19:28 +0200, Svante Signell wrote: > Thank you for the review. Attached is an updated patch. Is it OK now? I still > have to check return values of snprintf and realloc and maybe also switch to > using alloca (not POSIX though). I've got the feeling we have covered similar

Re: gputils: FTBFS on hurd-i386 (for review)

2017-04-05 Thread Svante Signell
On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 02:25 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > Hi! > > On Fri, 2017-03-31 at 15:13:03 +0200, Svante Signell wrote: > > Source: gputils > > Version: 1.4.0-0.1 > > Severity: important > > Tags: patch > > User: debian-hurd@lists.debian.org > > Usertags: hurd > > gputils currently FTBFS on

Re: gputils: FTBFS on hurd-i386 (for review)

2017-04-03 Thread Guillem Jover
Hi! On Fri, 2017-03-31 at 15:13:03 +0200, Svante Signell wrote: > Source: gputils > Version: 1.4.0-0.1 > Severity: important > Tags: patch > User: debian-hurd@lists.debian.org > Usertags: hurd > gputils currently FTBFS on GNU/Hurd due to PATH_MAX not being defined. The > attached patch fixes this

Re: gputils: FTBFS on hurd-i386 (for review)

2017-04-03 Thread Svante Signell
On Fri, 2017-03-31 at 18:07 +0100, James Clarke wrote: > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 03:13:03PM +0200, Svante Signell wrote: > > Source: gputils > > Version: 1.4.0-0.1 > > Severity: important > > Tags: patch > > User: debian-hurd@lists.debian.org > > Usertags: hurd ... > >  for (i = 0; i < state.nu

Re: gputils: FTBFS on hurd-i386 (for review)

2017-03-31 Thread James Clarke
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 03:13:03PM +0200, Svante Signell wrote: > Source: gputils > Version: 1.4.0-0.1 > Severity: important > Tags: patch > User: debian-hurd@lists.debian.org > Usertags: hurd > > Hi, > > gputils currently FTBFS on GNU/Hurd due to PATH_MAX not being defined. The > attached patch fi