Re: NAME_MAX bumping consequences

2012-12-25 Thread Marc Espie
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 09:30:53PM -0800, Philip Guenther wrote: On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Vadim Zhukov persg...@gmail.com wrote: ... Thanks a lot, Phillip! Now I feel myself much more brave than a few hours ago. :) I think about tweaking NAME_MAX to 1535: this should be fine for any

NAME_MAX bumping consequences

2012-12-24 Thread Vadim Zhukov
Hello all. One the of my jobs I have to work with SVN repository, which is used mainly by Windows devs (i.e. users). This way there are many files with File name length containing more than 255 bytes. Therefore, I cannot checkout such files and folders in OpenBSD: the NAME_MAX and MAXNAMLEN

Re: NAME_MAX bumping consequences

2012-12-24 Thread Philip Guenther
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 5:08 AM, Vadim Zhukov persg...@gmail.com wrote: ... I understand that simple change of those constants will (not ever could) break some system parts, break ABI, break apps assuming 255 and so on. All I want is to know is: if I'll build release with those constants

Re: NAME_MAX bumping consequences

2012-12-24 Thread Vadim Zhukov
24.12.2012 23:34 пользователь Philip Guenther guent...@gmail.com написал: On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 5:08 AM, Vadim Zhukov persg...@gmail.com wrote: ... I understand that simple change of those constants will (not ever could) break some system parts, break ABI, break apps

Re: NAME_MAX bumping consequences

2012-12-24 Thread Philip Guenther
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Vadim Zhukov persg...@gmail.com wrote: ... Thanks a lot, Phillip! Now I feel myself much more brave than a few hours ago. :) I think about tweaking NAME_MAX to 1535: this should be fine for any 255 UTF-8 characters (and even a bit more). Oh, PATH_MAX is