-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 03/28/2012 02:55 PM, Pino Toscano wrote: > Package: heimdal > Version: 1.6~git20120311.dfsg.1-1 > Severity: important > Tags: patch > User: debian-h...@lists.debian.org > Usertags: hurd > > Hi, > > currently[1], heimdal 1.6~git20120311.dfsg.1 does not compiled on > hurd-i386. > The problem is a new occurrence of MAXHOSTNAMELEN not covered by patch > 041_hurd_maxhostnamelen; the "fix" (just like the others in that patch) > is to use MaxHostNameLen instead, which is always defined. > Attached there is a new version of patch 041_hurd_maxhostnamelen, > refreshed and with the additional hunk for lib/krb5/principal.c. > > [1] https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=heimdal&arch=hurd-i386&ver=1.6%7Egit20120311.dfsg.1-1&stamp=1331734895 This change seems fine in general, it's consistent with the rest of the patch.
Looking at these patches for the first time, I do wonder if they do the right thing. My understanding is that there is no fixed limit on path and hostnames on GNU/Hurd. Yet MaxHostNameLen and MaxPathNameLen are (fairly arbitrary) constants, meaning that you *do* end up with a limit by using them instead. Wouldn't the proper fix be to use dynamically allocated strings? As using MaxPathNameLen and MaxHostNameLen means there are arbitrary limits anyway, is there any particular reason we couldn't just patch configure to #define MAXHOSTNAMELEN and PATH_MAX if they weren't in limits.h? That seems like a simpler solution and would prevent us from chasing new places where these constants are used. Cheers, Jelmer -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJPczHnAAoJEACAbyvXKaRXPNoP/i6In1fNLPGmtSZUCKpkv3kD j7/lm1lqgX1XgOjqnTr/Zq9nxRDkV/YkuRjZCOQuv7I7OLBgsyFdRi2czTpda7op w4YXIZd0BPDNv8W3uClv25jl4F3JN+F4VqvSLsC2H6JkNQD5XNsA/mfylBGWWWpL 9NA+QyFu+px3D8IAlxQHOlN81gRvb/cmY2mMXj1qbSincNuQ8ekOkwLib4sx8E7Y 2Knse/OkhXZqswn/P8dFgTBmenwpr1C3eniNkS4/SkWOPMdS3ddjkL1jl9aTzkjm i5VySX0rfHhMXaZewR5xhnoXdW5NF0BE9e8UHQIhCNPb7vBecF6zdDeFpLQKLmpa cEh9kfycRqB24zTkoW7aOlfetw0v61yDcmUoUR21h+NSdQcKKAM00iznGzdS7tGj U4bb78N7umhmvuqJlLp30i41d8Lv1c9V8EnP+v/HiWbee2zi5GVEMd5AI5Y0WOkO 7vOUzu7V0kjbrUrCjsvkDM2XE65oYAmA6nlSU8gPktLD3iLg0EY4MQqawZNY74ra AJC4YiYqp4/4nE3Q4RsnK99r4i+EEPG/oKUkBozfCSX/gmX0yWC4yTm6mXF8MeV/ mYqrq+P27E42BmIvJxSubiTVonRlwnX2lPGe7oWoXnxQWntBSZH1tMi8ODHTs93L ixMXefuPJ35deo1NIxVR =Xh4R -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
