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

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


to programs that don't otherwise cope with it.

Jeff Bailey

Reply to: