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

[debian-hurd-Patches][311015] #496274 procps-3.2.7 (debian-ports)



Patches item #311015, was changed at 2008-08-21 14:38 by Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
You can respond by visiting: 
https://alioth.debian.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=410472&aid=311015&group_id=30628

>Status: Closed
Priority: 3
Submitted By: Madhusudan C.S (madhusudancs-guest)
Assigned to: Nobody (None)
Summary: #496274 procps-3.2.7 (debian-ports) 
Category: None
>Group: fixed
>Resolution: Fixed


Initial Comment:
This patch eliminates the PATH_MAX problem in files ./proc/readproc.c and ./pwd.x.

Also alternatives method is used not to override the tools that are common in Hurd and procps.



----------------------------------------------------------------------

>Comment By: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort (pochu)
Date: 2010-03-21 20:33

Message:
This was applied in Debian, so let's close it. It fails to build but because of a different problem, so let's open another report for that.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Michael Banck (mbanck)
Date: 2008-09-02 11:22

Message:
Thanks, I have uploaded it to debian-ports now.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Madhusudan C.S (madhusudancs-guest)
Date: 2008-08-27 20:56

Message:
Hey Samuel I am really sorry, have been a bit occupied with school work this week, I forgot to paste the bug number here. I reported the bug on Monday only through reportbug command this is the bug number I got, Bug#496274

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Samuel Thibault (sthibaul-guest)
Date: 2008-08-27 01:15

Message:
Looks fine, I think you can submit it through reportbug.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Madhusudan C.S (madhusudancs-guest)
Date: 2008-08-23 21:28

Message:
  This is the right patch I think.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Madhusudan C.S (madhusudancs-guest)
Date: 2008-08-21 22:59

Message:
New patch. tload should install and work. PATH_MAX problem and buf is better managed in pwdx.c

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Madhusudan C.S (madhusudancs-guest)
Date: 2008-08-21 21:02

Message:
> By definition, sizeof(char) is 1.

> for the buf allocation, can't you just use 6 + 
> strlen(argv[i]) + 4 + 1 ?

> Instead of using strlen(pathbuf), just remember the size > you allocated last time.

Sure these both can be done. I will do it.

> Take care of spurious spacing changes, always read the 
> patch itself to check for those.

I did not understand this. Can you please tell me what you meant and where are those spurious spacing changes?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Samuel Thibault (sthibaul-guest)
Date: 2008-08-21 17:54

Message:
Also, why removing tload?  Shouldn't it work?  You should probably also
discuss with kfreebsd people whether removing pmap, slabtop there too
(that code should probably be shared)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Madhusudan C.S (madhusudancs-guest)
Date: 2008-08-21 17:48

Message:
This is the second patch and I think this should be applied, since this adds few additional tools that should not be installed on Hurd.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Samuel Thibault (sthibaul-guest)
Date: 2008-08-21 17:46

Message:
By definition, sizeof(char) is 1.

for the buf allocation, can't you just use 6 + strlen(argv[i]) + 4 + 1 ?

Instead of using strlen(pathbuf), just remember the size you allocated
last time.

Take care of spurious spacing changes, always read the patch itself to
check for those.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can respond by visiting: 
https://alioth.debian.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=410472&aid=311015&group_id=30628


Reply to: