Re: For masochists: the leap o faith

[Christopher Faylor <cgf at redhat dot com>]

On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 09:48:46AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>It is fairly unusual for PATH_MAX to be many times greater than what is
>>support by pathconf.
>
>And yet:
>http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xsh/fpathconf.html

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 want to show me then
that might be a convincing argument.  Otherwise, I'll have to fall back
on my personal UNIX experience.

I'm not vetoing the change because PATH_MAX is potentially large.  I was
kind of hoping (because I'm in incurable optimist) to start a discussion
with people who were familiar with packages that used PATH_MAX.  How
SUSv3 defines PATH_MAX is irrelevant to existing programs.

cgf