Re: Another package ported
On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 09:00:21AM -0400, Igor Khavkine wrote:
> > So doesn't it make sense for us to define this macro? All users of
> > MAXHOSTNAMELEN rely on the standard POSIX interface, so even if
> > the Hurd itself is not limited by this, those programs might
> > rightly rely on this limit and still claim POSIX compatibility.
> > In fact, it seems if we want to be POSIX compatible, we must not
> > return hostnames longer than that limit, or?
> That's a good idea. Does it go into the Hurd headers or glibc
> headers? In either case it's up to Roland if he wants to include it
> or not. But I think it should be defined approprietly (not that
> linux only defines it to be 64).
Even if Roland doesn't want to include it, it seems justifyable to add
#define MAXHOSTNAMELEN 256
to programs that don't otherwise cope with it.