[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: |
Fri, 04 Nov 2005 21:35:22 +0100 |
But you aren't thinking about the big picture. PATH_MAX growth is
*very* rare, and it is almost always the result of a change in a
single program. The rest of the world, in practice, can almost
always wait for the next release cycle.
Thats what they said about 2 digit years, 8 char passwords, 8.3 long
filenames, etc etc.
- Re: On PATH_MAX, (continued)
- 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 <=
- Re: On PATH_MAX, Michal Suchanek, 2005/11/04
- Re: On PATH_MAX, Michal Suchanek, 2005/11/04
RE: On PATH_MAX, Christopher Nelson, 2005/11/03
RE: On PATH_MAX, Christopher Nelson, 2005/11/03
RE: On PATH_MAX, Christopher Nelson, 2005/11/03
RE: On PATH_MAX, Christopher Nelson, 2005/11/03
RE: On PATH_MAX, Christopher Nelson, 2005/11/03