On Sat, 2003-11-22 at 21:59, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > However, CYG_MAX_PATH is simply decoupling the win32 ANSI path limit
> > from our internal path limit. If and when we don't have an effective
> > internal limit anymore, sure it can go.
>
> Yup, that's what I meant. It doesn't hurt to check
On Sat, Nov 22, 2003 at 08:44:49PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-11-21 at 21:25, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 07:58:36AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> > > > I would prefer to change PATH_MAX and MAXPATHLEN to an arbitrary big
> > > > value as, e. g. the same as
On Fri, 2003-11-21 at 21:25, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 07:58:36AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> >
> > > I would prefer to change PATH_MAX and MAXPATHLEN to an arbitrary big
> > > value as, e. g. the same as on Linux, 4096, or even the biggest possible
> > > plus one: 32768
On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 07:58:36AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 21:56, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 08:10:08AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> > > We have two choices (no particular order of preference):
> > > a) make MAX_PATH and posix friends the maxi
On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 21:56, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 08:10:08AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> > We have two choices (no particular order of preference):
> > a) make MAX_PATH and posix friends the maximum length path cygwin will
> > accept/return. Return ENAMETOOLONG on pa
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 08:10:08AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> Chris has noted that posixly correct behaviour and common practice may
> diverge. I think for this scenario, that posix behaviour allows the most
> accurate representation of the variety programs may encounter on cygwin
> at runtime.
On Sun, 2003-11-16 at 06:09, Brian Ford wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
> > Btw, I've moved this discussion here from cygwin-patches because we are
> > talking about a change which could impact a number of people. Robert is
> > submitting patches which increase the maxim
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 01:09:00PM -0600, Brian Ford wrote:
> >Well, since your soliciting opinions...
> >
> >I don't have much of one other than I'd really prefer to keep
> >PATH_MAX/MAX_PATH and define them to the largest allowable path so they
>
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 01:09:00PM -0600, Brian Ford wrote:
>On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>> Btw, I've moved this discussion here from cygwin-patches because we are
>> talking about a change which could impact a number of people. Robert is
>> submitting patches which increase t
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> Btw, I've moved this discussion here from cygwin-patches because we are
> talking about a change which could impact a number of people. Robert is
> submitting patches which increase the maximum path length for NT-class
> systems.
>
> My concern is
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 11:45:34AM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 07:07:26PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>>On Sat, 2003-11-15 at 15:43, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>>Yes, I've already (obviously?) been to SUSv3. I wasn't talking about
>>>standards. I was talking about c
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 07:07:26PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>On Sat, 2003-11-15 at 15:43, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>Yes, I've already (obviously?) been to SUSv3. I wasn't talking about
>>standards. I was talking about common practice.
>>
>>If you have a common practice web site that you wan
12 matches
Mail list logo
