Hi Svante, Today Svante Signell wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 09:08 +0200, Tobias Oetiker wrote: > > Hi Svante, > > > > Yesterday Svante Signell wrote: > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > Attached is an updated Debian patch for 1.4.7-2, from 2009, to avoid > > > PATH_MAX problems for GNU/Hurd in rrd_graph.{c,h} and rrd_tool.c. This > > > patch is conditioned on if MAXPATH (and __GLIBC__) is defined or not. > > > > > > I would suggest to avoid PATH_MAX (MAXPATH) if possible to maximize > > > portability and reduce code cluttering. Depending on your decision, the > > > rest of my patches will be conditioned on PATH_MAX or not (there are > > > also a number of other Debian patches pending). > > > > that patch looks pretty neat I think ... > > > > would you integrate it in your upcoming patch ? > > So you wan one megapatch for PATH_MAX/MAXPATH issues? Isn't it better to > create smaller patches that can easily be reverted if something goes > wrong? many small patches are fine ... I was just asking, whether you were plannig to build on this patch > > Another issue is if code should be #ifdef-ed or unconditional, e.g. > using > #ifdef MAX_PATH or > #ifndef MAX_PATH > ... > #else > ... > #endif > or completely removing the PATH_MAX (MAXPATH) dependency. What about the > Win32 port? I haven't looked into that. well, if there IS a limit to the path length by the OS, the code should observe it I think, or how would you deal with this ? cheers tobi > Thanks, > Svante > > -- Tobi Oetiker, OETIKER+PARTNER AG, Aarweg 15 CH-4600 Olten, Switzerland http://it.oetiker.ch t...@oetiker.ch ++41 62 775 9902 / sb: -9900 _______________________________________________ rrd-developers mailing list rrd-developers@lists.oetiker.ch https://lists.oetiker.ch/cgi-bin/listinfo/rrd-developers