On Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 10:33:06AM -0500, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote: > ``Have you stopped <dishonourable-practice> yet?'' I've outlined why > I think having the situation with gethostname on GNU/Hurd stinks. We > disagree, but there's no need for an attack.
(Sorry for replying a second time to the same message) There is a way to settle such a disagreement. The Austin group is open to suggestions how to modify the standard to make it better. We don't disagree with the draft on this point currently, and I think we both agree on the interpretation. However, if you think that there is support to require that HOST_NAME_MAX is defined, you can request the draft to be changed accordingly. (OTOH, I don't think this will lead to any improvement, as it might not be of any benefit if we define the limit to a ridiculous -- for memory allocation -- high value... but maybe by defining a highest value this could be rectified). Thanks, Marcus -- `Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
