Re: Rejecting part of HURD PAM patch--help appreciated
On Sat, May 25, 2002 at 05:12:44PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> This is my problem. The patch as written introduces different
> behavior on HURD when no such difference is justified.
Well, the different behaviour is not justified technically, but the reasons
were not technical anyway :) When I sent a patch, I don't really expect to
get it applied verbatim, I send the patch to get an example implementation
what worked for me, and it can serve as the base for the real integration,
which always must happen by the maintainer/author, as many decisions are
subjective and up to the particular preferences of the maintainer/author.
(Although I try to match the flavor of the surrounding code, there are still
plenty of things that are not derivable from that).
> I would be happy either defining some arbitrary maximum to be
> consistent with other platforms or improving the overall quality of
> the code and removing the need for the static buffer.
It depends on the way you use the buffer. If the path names to store there
are never user input, it might suffice to define a limit. But if that would
limit the user of the software, I think that doing dynamic allocation is
better.
> While not strictly the purpose of my mail, this was what I expected
> would be the best thing to do. I'll get around to doing that
> verification eventually but if you or someone in the hurd community
> gets around to it before I do, that would be appreciated. Or rather
> gets around to identifying other issues besides getline.
If nobody else steps up, I might get around in doing that. OTOH, once you
realize that there might be no limit, there is nothing Hurd specific in this
patch anymore ;) so the only advantage we have is that we are trained to
look for exactly this type of problems because it comes up often for us.
> I'll probably be uploading to experimental in a day or so, and that
> version probably will not work on the HURD. I suspect that upstream
> changes will also have introduced problems that need to be dealt with.
> I expect similar problems for the BSD folks.
>
> When the module is in experimental I'll send mail here and to
> debian-bsd so people can give it a look before I upload to unstable in
> a week or two.
Please do, as we don't track experimental automatically. You might consider
debian-ports@lists.debian.org - this will send to all port related mailing
lists. I don't know if that is needed, though.
Thanks,
Marcus
--
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org brinkmd@debian.org
Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org marcus@gnu.org
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de
http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-hurd-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: