This is the mail archive of the
cygwin@cygwin.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: For masochists: the leap o faith
- From: Christopher Faylor <cgf at redhat dot com>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 11:45:34 -0500
- Subject: Re: For masochists: the leap o faith
- References: <3FB4D81C.6010808@cygwin.com> <3FB53BAE.3000803@cygwin.com> <20031114220708.GA26100@redhat.com> <3FB55BCE.8030304@cygwin.com> <20031115044347.GA29583@redhat.com> <1068883645.1109.122.camel@localhost>
- Reply-to: cygwin at cygwin dot com
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.
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/