Re: Help in testing a patch for efax-gtk FTBFS on hurd
On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 23:52 +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 08/06/10 23:41, Iain R. Learmonth wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 23:37 +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> >> Not really. The point is that there's no such limits on Hurd (e.g. max hostname
> >> length, max pathname length...).
> > The limits may not physically exist, but for applications looking for
> > them, wouldn't it be good to have that compatibility built in?
> No, it's better to fix the applications since they are not guaranteed to exist
> (POSIX doesn't mandate them). Furthermore, what would you put in them? :-)
I was thinking along the lines of FreeBSD's Linux compatibility,
allowing applications to run with little modification. I understand that
to hang on to things that aren't in the specification, or are
deprecated, is not really a good thing, but if adding a library of
headers that defines these limits is easier than modifying a load of
applications that depend on them, this could be a good idea.