Re: [Fwd: [ISC-Bugs #25979] What happened to the dhcp patch in ISC-Bugs #24697 (Debian Bug #616290)?]
On Fri, 2011-12-16 at 19:46 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Dec 16, Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > Indeed so. But if upstream won't take the memory allocation patch
> > then a "big enough" #define is surely better than not having a dhcp
> > client.
> If Hurd developers would suddenly start to act pragmatically, then
> they may suddenly question what they are doing with their life. :-)
Defining PATH_MAX as a temporary workaround would sometimes be OK for
Debian packages, but definitely not for GNU/Hurd. I'm not an advocate of
this decision, you have to get explanations from the core developers.
One recent message about this issue is from Guillem Jover:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-hurd/2011/12/msg00044.html
That PATH_MAX is not a POSIX defined constant is a fact, no doubt :-)
rsyslog upstream has already adjusted their code to avoid using
PATH_MAX, and even solved two error conditions by doing this, and
resulting in less code (the message does not seem to be in the
debian-hurd archives yet but here is a reply):
http://lists.debian.org/debian-hurd/2011/12/msg00048.html
Reply to: