On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 09:48:46AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote: >Christopher Faylor wrote: >>It is fairly unusual for PATH_MAX to be many times greater than what is >>support by pathconf. > >And yet: >http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xsh/fpathconf.html
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. I'm not vetoing the change because PATH_MAX is potentially large. I was kind of hoping (because I'm in incurable optimist) to start a discussion with people who were familiar with packages that used PATH_MAX. How SUSv3 defines PATH_MAX is irrelevant to existing programs. cgf
