dovecot - Jun 2013 - Patch for pigeonhole 0.4.0 avoiding PATH_MAX

Hi,

I recently downloaded and built dovecot-2.2.2 and
dovecot-2.2-pigeonhole-0.4.0 on GNU/Linux and GNU/Hurd. The changes
needed will be sent to the Debian maintainer shortly. Latest Debian
release is 2.1.7-7 and dovecot-2.1-pigeonhole-0.3.1. When building
dovecot-2.2.2 there were no PATH_MAX problems on GNU/Hurd, thank you for
that. However, pigeonhole 0.4.0 had one remaining PATH_MAX construct.
The attached patch solves this problem. It it good enough to be accepted
upstream? (According to the description of t_malloc, free is not needed,
right?)

Thanks,
Svante Signell

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: fix_FTBFS4Hurd.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 1057 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/attachments/20130615/12ad3019/attachment.bin>

On 15.6.2013, at 16.24, Svante Signell <svante.signell at gmail.com>
wrote:
> I recently downloaded and built dovecot-2.2.2 and
> dovecot-2.2-pigeonhole-0.4.0 on GNU/Linux and GNU/Hurd. The changes
> needed will be sent to the Debian maintainer shortly. Latest Debian
> release is 2.1.7-7 and dovecot-2.1-pigeonhole-0.3.1. When building
> dovecot-2.2.2 there were no PATH_MAX problems on GNU/Hurd, thank you for
> that. However, pigeonhole 0.4.0 had one remaining PATH_MAX construct.
> The attached patch solves this problem. It it good enough to be accepted
> upstream? (According to the description of t_malloc, free is not needed,
> right?)
It can be done even more easily: Use t_readlink().

On 6/15/2013 3:24 PM, Svante Signell wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I recently downloaded and built dovecot-2.2.2 and
> dovecot-2.2-pigeonhole-0.4.0 on GNU/Linux and GNU/Hurd. The changes
> needed will be sent to the Debian maintainer shortly. Latest Debian
> release is 2.1.7-7 and dovecot-2.1-pigeonhole-0.3.1. When building
> dovecot-2.2.2 there were no PATH_MAX problems on GNU/Hurd, thank you for
> that. However, pigeonhole 0.4.0 had one remaining PATH_MAX construct.
> The attached patch solves this problem. It it good enough to be accepted
> upstream? (According to the description of t_malloc, free is not needed,
> right?)
Fixed:

http://hg.rename-it.nl/dovecot-2.2-pigeonhole/rev/1b1a0c271383

Regards,

Stephan.