On Fri, 2011-12-16 at 19:46 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Dec 16, Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote: > > > Indeed so. But if upstream won't take the memory allocation patch > > then a "big enough" #define is surely better than not having a dhcp > > client. > If Hurd developers would suddenly start to act pragmatically, then > they may suddenly question what they are doing with their life. :-)
Defining PATH_MAX as a temporary workaround would sometimes be OK for Debian packages, but definitely not for GNU/Hurd. I'm not an advocate of this decision, you have to get explanations from the core developers. One recent message about this issue is from Guillem Jover: http://lists.debian.org/debian-hurd/2011/12/msg00044.html That PATH_MAX is not a POSIX defined constant is a fact, no doubt :-) rsyslog upstream has already adjusted their code to avoid using PATH_MAX, and even solved two error conditions by doing this, and resulting in less code (the message does not seem to be in the debian-hurd archives yet but here is a reply): http://lists.debian.org/debian-hurd/2011/12/msg00048.html -- 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/1324062830.12680.164.ca...@s1499.it.kth.se
