On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 09:00:21AM -0400, Igor Khavkine wrote: > > So doesn't it make sense for us to define this macro? All users of > > MAXHOSTNAMELEN rely on the standard POSIX interface, so even if > > the Hurd itself is not limited by this, those programs might > > rightly rely on this limit and still claim POSIX compatibility. > > In fact, it seems if we want to be POSIX compatible, we must not > > return hostnames longer than that limit, or?
> That's a good idea. Does it go into the Hurd headers or glibc > headers? In either case it's up to Roland if he wants to include it > or not. But I think it should be defined approprietly (not that > linux only defines it to be 64). Even if Roland doesn't want to include it, it seems justifyable to add #ifndef MAXHOSTNAMELEN #define MAXHOSTNAMELEN 256 #endif to programs that don't otherwise cope with it. Tks, Jeff Bailey
