[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [Fwd: [ISC-Bugs #25979] What happened to the dhcp patch in ISC-Bugs #24697 (Debian Bug #616290)?]



On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 02:15:11PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Svante Signell writes ("[Fwd: [ISC-Bugs #25979] What happened to the dhcp patch in ISC-Bugs #24697 (Debian Bug #616290)?]"):
> > Dear Debian/Hurd, GNU/Hurd and Debian-devel people. This arrived today.
> > Any ideas on how to proceed? Is it possible to create a Hurd-specific
> > fork of the latest ISC-DHCP release? DHCP is an essential package in the
> > Debian Installer.
> 
> I went and read the Debian bug report.  The difficulty seems to be
> with the patch "fix_ftbfs4hurd.dpatch".  I have to say that on reading
> that patch I understood upstream's reluctance.  I don't think it looks
> to me like a correct and appropriate fix for build portability
> problems.

Hurd doesn't support PATH_MAX.  So trying to allocate memory based on
PATH_MAX isn't going to work on Hurd.  However, with glibc (and with
POSIX 1003.1-2008) we can simply mark the destination buffer to realpath
as NULL and the appropriate amount of memory will be automatically
allocated.  Not all systems support this, though.

I cannot comment on the remainder of the patch, but the PATH_MAX issue
is a pretty common one for Hurd, and assuming PATH_MAX is a compile-time
constant is a bad idea anyway, since it's not allowed by POSIX.

-- 
brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US
+1 832 623 2791 | http://www.crustytoothpaste.net/~bmc | My opinion only
OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b: 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: