Hi Olivier,
On Sat, Nov 04, 2017 at 03:17:59PM +0100, cognet wrote:
> > Oh too bad, we've already dealt with this a long time ago but now it
> > reappeared in new code. CCing Olivier. Olivier, in 2012 we already
> > faced this issue and addressed it in commit ee2663b ("BUILD: ssl:
> > NAME_MAX is not portable, use MAXPATHLEN instead") but resorting to
> > MAXPATHLEN.
> >
>
> The attached patch should fix that.
Thanks, now applied.
> Sorry about that, I remember trying to figure out what the right spelling was,
> quite obviously I was wrong :)
It's always the problem when several such variables work on a given platform.
> But shouldn't it be PATH_MAX, which seems to be defined by POSIX ?
Very likely, yes, but I seem to remember something about it being declared
to be a very different size than the other ones on some older libc, which
might have explained why we sticked to MAXPATHLEN by then.
Willy
