On 2006-01-26, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > > However, I think it would be even better to rely on PATH_MAX + 1 for the > > allocation of p (or 4096 where PATH_MAX is not defined) and only > > allocate it once for a given directory. We can then use snprintf instead > > of sprintf and check the return value to detect errors. On error, we can > > realloc with the needed size, or just fail - I really don't see anyone > > using such long names, and as I understand it PATH_MAX is a system limit > > so it probably wouldn't work anyway. > > Yes, a PATH_MAX long string would work as well. Do you want to fix it?
Will do. Is it OK if I do it this evening, or do you want me to wait until after the release? -- Jean Delvare _______________________________________________ Quilt-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/quilt-dev
