Re: [fejj@ximian.com: Re: serious bug. Evolution and Microsoft mentality.]

2002-01-16 Thread Neal H Walfield
> Note that our current glibc implementation (stdlib/canonicalize.c) will > hardcode a fixed max size of 1024 for the string returned by realpath if > PATH_MAX and pathconf don't indicate a limit. This is an implementation detail and must be ignored, in fact, it could change. ___

Re: [fejj@ximian.com: Re: serious bug. Evolution and Microsoft mentality.]

2002-01-11 Thread Marcus Brinkmann
On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 10:21:17PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: > On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 03:20:20AM +, Adam Olsen wrote: > > The basic question is whether realpath() uses _POSIX_PATH_MAX as the > > limit, which is a useful behavior (atleast as far as realpath goes), > > or whether it uses no

Re: [fejj@ximian.com: Re: serious bug. Evolution and Microsoft mentality.]

2002-01-11 Thread Jeroen Dekkers
On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 03:20:20AM +, Adam Olsen wrote: > The basic question is whether realpath() uses _POSIX_PATH_MAX as the > limit, which is a useful behavior (atleast as far as realpath goes), > or whether it uses no limit at all, which is as useless as gets(). > > As for portability, I

[fejj@ximian.com: Re: serious bug. Evolution and Microsoft mentality.]

2002-01-11 Thread Adam Olsen
Jeff: I decided it's easier to forward this to a proper hurd list, rather than relaying info for things I can't check myself :) The basic question is whether realpath() uses _POSIX_PATH_MAX as the limit, which is a useful behavior (atleast as far as realpath goes), or whether it uses no limit at