On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 04:35:09PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Bill Allombert wrote:
Now preserving interfaces _does_ seem like an objection that's more
important. A policy should like this (potential) one represents a
bug but it is not necessarily more important than the other bug of
On Wed, 02 Mar 2011, Sean Finney wrote:
Having a warning in lintian for arbitrarily long (perhaps = 256)
filenames is totally reasonable i'd say, but there's no reason to
Most (all?) filesystems commonly used in Debian systems will limit you to
somewhere close to 254 characters per filename
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
# looks like I jumped the gun in rejecting this.
tags 587377 - wishlist
Unknown tag/s: wishlist.
Recognized are: patch wontfix moreinfo unreproducible fixed potato woody sid
help security upstream pending sarge sarge-ignore experimental d-i
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 22:17:32 -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
If I had to make a proposal, I'd suggest maxima of
_XOPEN_PATH_MAX / 2 (= 512) for paths, to leave room for chroots
_XOPEN_NAME_MAX - 16 (= 239) for filenames, to leave room for
.dpkg-divert.tmp. Forget ReiserFS 3. :)
I
On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 10:17:32PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Aaron M. Ucko wrote:
As I recall, I was running reiser3 at the time.
Thanks. To summarize:
A lintian-clean Debian package failed to unpack with ENAMETOOLONG.
Setting maximum lengths for paths and filenames in data.tar.gz
Bill Allombert wrote:
On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 10:17:32PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Another question: is Debian policy the right place to make a decisions
like this? Ideally these maxima would be set using some cross-distro
standard like POSIX or the FHS. Sadly:
I do not think it is
On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 03:58:59PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Bill Allombert wrote:
On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 10:17:32PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Another question: is Debian policy the right place to make a decisions
like this? Ideally these maxima would be set using some
Bill Allombert wrote:
Not really; the packager might not be able to change the filename without
breaking either
FHS compliance, the interface or compatibility with upstream.
Ah, now I think I understand a bit better.
FHS compliance sounds like a red herring to me. Does the FHS mandate
Hi Jonathan,
On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 15:58 -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
* how many characters of grace area can tools like dpkg-divert feel
free to use?
I don't think tools should be like whoa, i think this filename is going
to be too long for some arbitrary value, nor should they be like
tags 587377 + wontfix
quit
Sean Finney wrote:
On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 15:58 -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
* how many characters of grace area can tools like dpkg-divert feel
free to use?
I don't think tools should be like whoa, i think this filename is going
to be too long for some
On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 04:35:09PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Bill Allombert wrote:
Not really; the packager might not be able to change the filename without
breaking either
FHS compliance, the interface or compatibility with upstream.
Ah, now I think I understand a bit better.
Bill Allombert wrote:
To give an example: Debian policy mandates that the file
/usr/share/doc/package/changelog.Debian.gz
exists.
Now perl subpolicy mandate that the perl module
Foo::Bar::Baz::Qux::Quux::Quuux::Qx
whic live in /usr/share/perl5/Foo/Bar/Baz/Qux/Quux/Quuux/Qx
be
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
This is a hard one. I agree that dpkg shouldn't enforce this (though
perhaps it could recover better).
That's fair.
To throw out a strawman, I suppose 256 characters should be a reasonable
maximum for paths in Debian packages.
Running a variant
Hi,
I don't think policy really has much place establishing an arbitrary
file limit either, though.
Having a warning in lintian for arbitrarily long (perhaps = 256)
filenames is totally reasonable i'd say, but there's no reason to
otherwise throw out limits for the sake of having them. It
Sean Finney wrote:
Having a warning in lintian for arbitrarily long (perhaps = 256)
filenames is totally reasonable i'd say, but there's no reason to
otherwise throw out limits for the sake of having them.
Oh, I don't know.
Now that I check, the path provoking this was 269 characters
hi jonathan,
On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 13:11 -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Now that I check, the path provoking this was 269 characters
(including leading '.'). I'm able to install the package, both on
tmpfs and ext4, without trouble. I suppose it would be interesting to
know: what was the
Sean Finney wrote:
Back when I was doing the conffile stuff I recall seeing hardcoded 256
character limits within dpkg in the archive handling stuff.
path_quote_filename(buf, fname, 256) and %.255s get used to display
filenames to the user, but I think anything lower level having that
limit
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
E.g., what filesystem?
As I recall, I was running reiser3 at the time.
Now I'm starting to worry that it might have been the length of the
filename rather than the pathname that triggered Bug#587440. But the
filename was only 234 characters, which
u...@debian.org (Aaron M. Ucko) writes:
(in usr/share/doc/kwwidgets-doc/html), 138 characters long, so such a
That's a pathological example per #552346; disregarding kwwidgets-doc
gets the current limit down to 133, which 14 packages hit in unstable.
--
Aaron M. Ucko, KB1CJC (amu at
Aaron M. Ucko wrote:
As I recall, I was running reiser3 at the time.
Thanks. To summarize:
A lintian-clean Debian package failed to unpack with ENAMETOOLONG.
Setting maximum lengths for paths and filenames in data.tar.gz
in policy could prevent future mistakes of this kind, without making
user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
usertags 587377 + normative issue
quit
Guillem Jover wrote:
This is not really a dpkg bug, the limitation is not actually coming
from it, it's coming from the kernel and/or specific file system
implementation. I don't consider it appropriate to add an
: Decide on arbitrary file/path names limit
Bug #587377 [debian-policy] dpkg: can't install packages with really long
filenames
Changed Bug title to 'debian-policy: Decide on arbitrary file/path names limit'
from 'dpkg: can't install packages with really long filenames'
severity 587377 wishlist
reassign 587377 debian-policy
retitle 587377 debian-policy: Decide on arbitrary file/path names limit
severity 587377 wishlist
thanks
[ Resending to the list, forgot the first time, setting Reply-To to the
bug report. ]
Hi!
On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 21:03:28 -0400, Aaron M. Ucko wrote:
Package:
23 matches
Mail list logo
