> i was mainly referring to your objection of changing MAXPDSTRING due to
> limitations of MAX_PATH. anything regarding this?
My objection is that its a big unknown what will happen and this is supposed
to be a releases candidate situation. All sorts of things are done based on
MAXPDSTRING, and
On 01/23/2013 10:18 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Changing MAXPDSTRING will affect everything in Pd, and as another long time
upstream developer, I've never heard of anyone changing it. It does not seem
like a change to make in the final phase of the release cycle. I think it
makes much mo
On 12/09/2012 07:54 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Hey Roland,
Good to see you working on Pd too :) About your patch, I think increasing
MAXPDSTRING is dangerous because Pd uses MAXPDSTRING as the max path length as
well. I think Debian's maximum path length is quite a bit shorter than 1
Changing MAXPDSTRING will affect everything in Pd, and as another long time
upstream developer, I've never heard of anyone changing it. It does not seem
like a change to make in the final phase of the release cycle. I think it
makes much more sense to remove the new thing that's triggering the i
On 01/23/2013 09:46 PM, IOhannes zmölnig wrote:
On 12/09/2012 07:54 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Hey Roland,
Good to see you working on Pd too :) About your patch, I think
increasing MAXPDSTRING is dangerous because Pd uses MAXPDSTRING as the
max path length as well. I think Debian's maxi
Hey Roland,
Good to see you working on Pd too :) About your patch, I think increasing
MAXPDSTRING is dangerous because Pd uses MAXPDSTRING as the max path length as
well. I think Debian's maximum path length is quite a bit shorter than 1
bytes. Its not a good situation, I know, but that
6 matches
Mail list logo
