On 05/29/11 01:39, James Youngman wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Markus Duft wrote:
>> right, that'd be great. now suacomp takes the work :)
>>
>> thanks very much, and apologies for bringing the work up in the first
>> place...
>> markus
>
> All done I think:
> http://git.savannah.gn
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Markus Duft wrote:
> right, that'd be great. now suacomp takes the work :)
>
> thanks very much, and apologies for bringing the work up in the first place...
> markus
All done I think:
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/findutils.git/commit/?id=de53ac26074b94ec249e6
On 05/27/11 00:08, James Youngman wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
>> On 05/26/2011 01:10 AM, Markus Duft wrote:
2. modify the configure script to refuse to build findutils at all on
Interix unless suacomp is installed [i.e. "make things worse"].
>>>
>>>
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 05/26/2011 01:10 AM, Markus Duft wrote:
>>> 2. modify the configure script to refuse to build findutils at all on
>>> Interix unless suacomp is installed [i.e. "make things worse"].
>>>
>>
>> I'd be more for 2, as i'm currently contaminating
On 05/26/2011 01:10 AM, Markus Duft wrote:
>> 2. modify the configure script to refuse to build findutils at all on
>> Interix unless suacomp is installed [i.e. "make things worse"].
>>
>
> I'd be more for 2, as i'm currently contaminating a whole lot of packages
> with suacomp anyway (gnulib, co
Do you have a completed patch for option [1] (making it work somewhat
on Interix only, and better on Interix+suacomp) at all?
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 8:10 AM, Markus Duft wrote:
> On 05/26/11 01:48, James Youngman wrote:
>> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Markus Duft wrote:
>>> On 10/28/10 14
On 05/26/11 01:48, James Youngman wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Markus Duft wrote:
>> On 10/28/10 14:43, Markus Duft wrote:
>> [snip]
another solution that came to my mind: i'm maintaining a library, who's
sole purpose is to fix the incorrect behaviour of libc in some regar
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Markus Duft wrote:
> On 10/28/10 14:43, Markus Duft wrote:
> [snip]
>>> another solution that came to my mind: i'm maintaining a library, who's
>>> sole purpose is to fix the incorrect behaviour of libc in some regards on
>>> interix (libsuacomp [1]). it does so
On 10/28/10 14:43, Markus Duft wrote:
[snip]
>> another solution that came to my mind: i'm maintaining a library, who's sole
>> purpose is to fix the incorrect behaviour of libc in some regards on interix
>> (libsuacomp [1]). it does some "bad" things already ( ;p ), so maybe i could
>> override
On 10/28/2010 04:59 PM, Markus Duft wrote:
thinking of gnulib, i can see a lot of potential problems, starting fex, that
gnulib
modules are copied into the packages, rather than gnulib beeing an installed
library
that is linked against (is this true always?).
It is true that gnulib is usually
On 10/28/2010 04:16 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
[snip]
>
> That's exactly what gnulib is - a library of source code workarounds for
> broken platform functions. Are you interested in porting your
> libsuacomp fixes into gnulib, so that more GNU programs can support
> Interix out of the box?
(i'll take
On 10/28/2010 06:43 AM, Markus Duft wrote:
> On 10/28/2010 12:08 PM, Markus Duft wrote:
>> On 10/28/2010 12:03 PM, James Youngman wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> In so far as we're likely ever to fix this problem I'd be inclined to
>>> go for the 32K limit that Eric suggested. And perhaps treating
>>> ENOME
On 10/28/2010 12:08 PM, Markus Duft wrote:
> On 10/28/2010 12:03 PM, James Youngman wrote:
> [snip]
>> In so far as we're likely ever to fix this problem I'd be inclined to
>> go for the 32K limit that Eric suggested. And perhaps treating
>> ENOMEM like E2BIG when execve fails, for Interix.
>
>
On 10/28/2010 12:03 PM, James Youngman wrote:
[snip]
> In so far as we're likely ever to fix this problem I'd be inclined to
> go for the 32K limit that Eric suggested. And perhaps treating
> ENOMEM like E2BIG when execve fails, for Interix.
mhm - that'd be ok with me.
another solution that cam
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Markus Duft wrote:
> On 10/28/2010 10:55 AM, James Youngman wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 7:33 AM, Markus Duft wrote:
>>> through trial and error, i found out that with a 3K environment, 50K seems
>>> to work well, which seems rather odd then - as arguments
On 10/28/2010 10:55 AM, James Youngman wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 7:33 AM, Markus Duft wrote:
>> through trial and error, i found out that with a 3K environment, 50K seems
>> to work well, which seems rather odd then - as arguments would be 47K in the
>> worst case then, right?
>>
>> i hav
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 7:33 AM, Markus Duft wrote:
> through trial and error, i found out that with a 3K environment, 50K seems to
> work well, which seems rather odd then - as arguments would be 47K in the
> worst case then, right?
>
> i have no idea how we could be able to reliably find a "re
On 10/28/2010 08:33 AM, Markus Duft wrote:
[snip]
> i have no idea how we could be able to reliably find a "real" limit on
> interix, other than a configure check which tries to exec until it works...
> however, the check would need to grow the env to the maximum, too.
i came up with a small (ha
On 10/28/2010 01:20 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 10/27/2010 05:12 PM, James Youngman wrote:
>>
>>> AFAIK, the maximum environment size
>>> on interix is 32K, if that's of any interest to you...
>>
>> Does it express the size of this limit in a way that's relevant to the
>> POSIX programming interface
On 10/27/2010 05:12 PM, James Youngman wrote:
>
>> AFAIK, the maximum environment size
>> on interix is 32K, if that's of any interest to you...
>
> Does it express the size of this limit in a way that's relevant to the
> POSIX programming interface?
Windows in general has a 32k limit on argumen
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Markus Duft wrote:
> Hey :)
>
> I recently updated my findutils builds on interix (work without
> any patches (except a gnulib patch i already submitted), thanks
> for the great work ;) ), and stumbled across a small problem:
>
> mduft xargs $ find /usr/ | ./xargs
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Markus Duft wrote:
> On 10/27/2010 08:42 AM, Markus Duft wrote:
>> On 10/23/2010 01:52 PM, James Youngman wrote:
>>> Thanks. I adopted a very slightly different approach, see
>>> https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/index.php?31424
>>>
>>> The updated code is already pu
On 10/27/2010 08:42 AM, Markus Duft wrote:
> On 10/23/2010 01:52 PM, James Youngman wrote:
>> Thanks. I adopted a very slightly different approach, see
>> https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/index.php?31424
>>
>> The updated code is already pushed.
>
> The patch works as expected, thank you very much
On 10/23/2010 01:52 PM, James Youngman wrote:
> Thanks. I adopted a very slightly different approach, see
> https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/index.php?31424
>
> The updated code is already pushed.
The patch works as expected, thank you very much - this was really painless ;)
markus
>
> James.
>
Thanks. I adopted a very slightly different approach, see
https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/index.php?31424
The updated code is already pushed.
James.
On 10/22/2010 03:30 PM, Markus Duft wrote:
> Hey :)
>
[snip]
> It seems that max argument length is too high...
>
> Now, i'm pretty aware that interix is doing _many_ things wrong, and
> sysconf(_SC_ARG_MAX) may well return a much too high number, but to
> consistently handle such cases, would it
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Markus Duft wrote:
> Hey :)
>
> I recently updated my findutils builds on interix (work without
> any patches (except a gnulib patch i already submitted), thanks
> for the great work ;) ), and stumbled across a small problem:
>
> mduft xargs $ find /usr/ | ./xargs
Hey :)
I recently updated my findutils builds on interix (work without
any patches (except a gnulib patch i already submitted), thanks
for the great work ;) ), and stumbled across a small problem:
mduft xargs $ find /usr/ | ./xargs
./xargs: /bin/echo: Cannot allocate memory
mduft xargs $ ./xar
28 matches
Mail list logo
