>> > There will have to be some arbitrary limits in the 0.7 metadata. >> > >> > Is a 256 byte limit on filenames reasonable? (We are talking about >> > names >> > in manifests or ZIP manifests here). Would it be better to use longer >> > filenames? >> >> If you mean just for filenames, that should do, I would think. But if >> you're talking about complete pathnames, then no, I'd suggest at least >> doubling that figure. > >I agree with this one. I have seen path/file exceed 256 with nasty results - >it was with a backup system.
on my system i've no problems breaking the 400 border for full path+filename...
