On Fri 2017-02-17 04:42:14 -0500, Justus Winter wrote: > Well, I tested it on all systems I had access to at that time. I could > have written a small test program, and asked people to run it on systems > we don't have access to. But we never got to that point :(
That would be a way to advance this conversation, i think :)
However, path length may only be one concern. What about other
scenarios, like trying to operate with a read-only $GNUPGHOME ? Is that
something we want to support? What about a $GNUPGHOME that resides on a
network-mount drive, or a filesystem that doesn't support unix-domain
sockets?
>> But if you ever use getsockname (e.g. common/sysutils.c and
>> dirmngr/dns.c), the long socket path names are bound to fail on *any*
>> system, right?
>
> Yes. And iirc I went over why we use getsockname and figured that we
> could do away with them.
but they're still there! if they're not necessary, we should remove
them. useful diffs with more -'s than +'s are very nice contributions
to any complex software project :)
--dkg
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
