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

Bug#666154: texlive-bin: Do not hard code PATH_MAX



Package: texlive-binaries
Version: 2011.20120328-1
Severity: wishlist
File: texlive-bin
Tags: upstream

Hi,

right now we hard code PATH_MAX in one of the kpathsea headers:

.../texk/kpathsea/c-pathmx.h

#ifndef _POSIX_PATH_MAX
#define _POSIX_PATH_MAX 255
#endif

#ifndef PATH_MAX
#ifdef MAXPATHLEN
#define PATH_MAX MAXPATHLEN
#elif defined (MAX_PATH)
#define PATH_MAX MAX_PATH
#else
#define PATH_MAX _POSIX_PATH_MAX
#endif
#endif /* not PATH_MAX */

According to
http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/community/gsoc/project_ideas/maxpath.html
this is not a good solution anmd should be replaced by a proper one.

H.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: wheezy/sid
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)

Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-2-686-pae (SMP w/1 CPU core)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) (ignored: LC_ALL set to en_GB.UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash

Versions of packages texlive-binaries depends on:
ii  dpkg            1.16.2
ii  ed              1.6-1
ii  install-info    4.13a.dfsg.1-8
ii  libc6           2.13-27
ii  libfontconfig1  2.8.0-3.1
ii  libfreetype6    2.4.9-1
ii  libgcc1         1:4.7.0-1
ii  libkpathsea6    2011.20120322-1
ii  libpng12-0      1.2.47-2
ii  libpoppler13    0.16.7-3
ii  libptexenc1     2011.20120322-1
ii  libstdc++6      4.7.0-1
ii  libt1-5         5.1.2-3.5
ii  libx11-6        2:1.4.4-4
ii  libxaw7         2:1.0.9-3
ii  libxmu6         2:1.1.0-3
ii  libxpm4         1:3.5.9-4
ii  libxt6          1:1.1.1-2
ii  perl            5.14.2-9
ii  tex-common      3.5
ii  texlive-common  2011.20120322-1
ii  zlib1g          1:1.2.6.dfsg-2

Versions of packages texlive-binaries recommends:
pn  luatex          0.70.1-2
pn  python          2.7.2-10
pn  ruby1.8 [ruby]  1.8.7.352-2
pn  texlive-base    2011.20120322-1
pn  wish            <none>

texlive-binaries suggests no packages.

-- no debconf information



Reply to: