[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: On PATH_MAX
From: |
Alfred M\. Szmidt |
Subject: |
Re: On PATH_MAX |
Date: |
Thu, 03 Nov 2005 16:12:57 +0100 |
> GNU Arch is quite famous in that respect: it produces files and
> directories with (sometimes) awfully long names...
Yes. GNU Arch is poorly designed in any number of regards. This has
nothing to do with the PATH_MAX issue in any direct sense, but if a
fixed PATH_MAX serves to discourage this class of silliness, I am
in favor of that.
Make it possible to set the amount a user is able to allocate instead
of setting any kind of static limit that is impossible to get away
from without recompiling the whole system.
Arbitrary limits are poor software design, and have always been.
- On PATH_MAX, Ludovic Courtès, 2005/11/02
- Re: On PATH_MAX, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2005/11/03
- Re: On PATH_MAX,
Alfred M\. Szmidt <=
- RE: On PATH_MAX, Christopher Nelson, 2005/11/03
- Re: On PATH_MAX, Marcus Brinkmann, 2005/11/03
- Re: On PATH_MAX, Alfred M\. Szmidt, 2005/11/03
- Re: On PATH_MAX, Marcus Brinkmann, 2005/11/04
- Re: On PATH_MAX, Alfred M\. Szmidt, 2005/11/04
- Re: On PATH_MAX, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2005/11/04
- Re: On PATH_MAX, Alfred M\. Szmidt, 2005/11/04
- Message not available
- Re: On PATH_MAX, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2005/11/04
- Re: On PATH_MAX, Alfred M\. Szmidt, 2005/11/04