[debian-hurd-Patches][310743] #479640 libsvg hurd patch
Patches item #310743, was opened at 2008-04-27 01:49
Status: Open
Priority: 3
Submitted By: Flávio Cruz (flaviocruz-guest)
Assigned to: Nobody (None)
Summary: #479640 libsvg hurd patch
Category: None
Group: None
>Resolution: Accepted
Initial Comment:
libsvg-0.1.4 patch for GNU/Hurd
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Flávio Cruz (flaviocruz-guest)
Date: 2008-05-05 22:20
Message:
Patch/bug submitted http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=479640
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Samuel Thibault (sthibaul-guest)
Date: 2008-05-01 01:24
Message:
Oops, Olaf made me aware that in the non GLIBC case, you don't call
getcwd()... :)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Samuel Thibault (sthibaul-guest)
Date: 2008-04-30 01:49
Message:
The patch looks fine to me, I think you can submit it through the
reportbug tool, see for instance http://bugs.debian.org/472129 and
http://www.bddebian.com/~wiki/hurd/running/debian/patch_submission/
(yes, severity is only "important" because hurd-i386 is not a release
arch)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Samuel Thibault (sthibaul-guest)
Date: 2008-04-30 01:39
Message:
There is no such thing as a "good default value" :) Some people may need
long paths, others may need smaller (and then 1024 is just wasting
memory). That said, 1024 should be ok.
The problem with PATH_MAX is that some function interfaces like
getcwd are just hosed. The correct way is to just allocate everything
dynamically. The easier way is to just use the nice GNU extensions that
are being accepted as POSIX standard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Flávio Cruz (flaviocruz-guest)
Date: 2008-04-30 01:20
Message:
Oops, forgot about that.
Do you think 1024 is a good default value? I think that it is used in GNULib.
By the way, do you know a better way to tackle PATH_MAX issues?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Samuel Thibault (sthibaul-guest)
Date: 2008-04-29 00:30
Message:
Mmm, isn't libsvg supposed to be threadsafe? The assignation of pathmax
variable is not safe: it may be -1 when another thread enters the
function too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Flávio Cruz (flaviocruz-guest)
Date: 2008-04-29 00:14
Message:
Updated :-)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Samuel Thibault (sthibaul-guest)
Date: 2008-04-27 20:45
Message:
Same comment about sysconf and _PC_PATH_MAX.
You can also, when __GLIBC__ is defined, use
getcwd(NULL,0)
to have the string allocated with the right size.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can respond by visiting:
http://alioth.debian.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=410472&aid=310743&group_id=30628
Reply to: