Re: Trying to compile
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marcus Brinkmann" <Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
To: "Frederico S. Muñoz" <fsmunoz@sdf.lonestar.org>
Cc: "Neal H Walfield" <neal@cs.uml.edu>; "Brent Fulgham"
<brent.fulgham@xpsystems.com>; <debian-hurd@lists.debian.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 8:53 PM
Subject: Re: Trying to compile
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 02:43:24PM +0100, Frederico S. Muñoz wrote:
> > Just for the record, is the correct way of dealing with the thousands of
> > packages that have MAXPATHLEN (and PATHMAX et al.) issues
>
> Did you count them? There are probably hundreds, but not many (in Debian,
> perhaps about 200-300, a couple of dozen fixed already).
Umm, er, I meant hundreds :) I'm prolly under the wrong impression that they
are a lot because the three packages I tried to compile all had them: tree,
epic and openssh; but you know better, so they are prolly not as many as I
tought.
>
> > is to change the
> > code of every single one of them so that they can use the asprintf and
> > alloca, etc?
>
> Yes.
Ok.
>
> > BTW, I am thinking of taking an example from epic that used MAXPATHLEN
and
> > post it here with my change to it... that way you could tell me if I'm
doing
> > things the Right Way (dunno if this is the correct mailing list, if it
isn't
> > please tell me, i.e. is it better to go to bug-hurd?).
>
> Well, both are appropriate, but pick one.
Well, will prolly stick to debian-hurd, but if anyone thinks it should be
crossposted feel free to add a Cc.
best regards,
Frederico S. Muñoz
fsmunoz@sdf.lonestar.org
Reply to: