Re: Thoughts on MAXPATHLEN
2012/1/31 Jérémie Koenig <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Justus Winter
> <email@example.com> wrote:
>> Well, fixing fixed-sized buffer issues is a good exercise to improve
>> ones c skills,
And not only C skills. During the process you learn a lot about Hurd,
Debian and some useful stuff like git, valgrind, ikiwiki...
It's not only fixing a bug but understanding all the ecosystem. This
is actually the reason why it took me so long to start contributing!
>> but I do not see how it helps anyone to get a foot into
>> the Hurd project if he fixed a bug in e.g. nautilus or tar.
I do agree. Fixing PATH_MAX code should not be the Hurd developer's job!
We could decide to define PATH_MAX in Hurd limits.h or create "#define
PATH_MAX" patches for all the packages for the time being and we would
have 200+ new packages available on Hurd.
But then those packages will never be fixed because nobody will ever
have time to fix something that already works!
And we will end up with a broken OS... which we already have! ^_^'
But it's my humble opinion! And I quite happy fixing trivial bugs for now! :-)
>> Fixing real problems related to Hurd, gnumach, mig, the documentation
>> and Debian or Arch integration and packaging is much more helpful for
>> both Hurd users and the project itself.
Not everyone can fix "complex" bugs or work on Hurd internals.
Fixing trivial bugs is something that I can do when I have time
without bothering (too much) the real developers.
So, what ever you guys decide to do... count me in! ^_^'