Iago Bonnici
2024-Sep-17 10:28 UTC
[Rd] Wrong/incomplete documentation regarding the 100-bytes path length limit.
Hello @r-devel, ??? From what I read in the following thread: https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-package-devel/2023q4/010197.html ??? The major reason to limit paths lengths in R packages is to help support MS Windows 260-chars paths lengths limit (pre-W10). ??? However, the official documentation at this address: https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/R-exts.html#Package-structure-1 ??? States: > /packages are normally distributed as tarballs, and these have a limit on path lengths: for maximal portability 100 bytes. /??? This is the wrong explanation. Tar has been supporting 256-chars paths since POSIX.1-1988 and unlimited paths since POSIX.1-2001. The limitation should be deferred to MS Windows instead of tar. ??? Considering that the manuals are ? /edited by the R Development Core Team /? <https://cran.r-project.org/manuals.html>, I suppose that this is the right list to point out this inconsistency? How can I help in fixing this? Should I open a bug at R Bugzilla? ??? Note: I am not discussing whether the limit itself should be reconsidered. That discussion seems yet covered by the aforementioned thread (but it's non-official), and by bug #18637 <https://bugs.r-project.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18637> (but it's stale). In any case, I think there is no blocker to clarifying the situation in the documentation. ??? Best regards, -- Iago-lito [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
Tomas Kalibera
2024-Sep-17 12:45 UTC
[Rd] Wrong/incomplete documentation regarding the 100-bytes path length limit.
On 9/17/24 12:28, Iago Bonnici via R-devel wrote:> Hello @r-devel, > > ??? From what I read in the following thread: > > https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-package-devel/2023q4/010197.html > > ??? The major reason to limit paths lengths in R packages is to help > support MS Windows 260-chars paths lengths limit (pre-W10).Not really, the limit on Windows is a reason why path length is a scarce resource in portable applications. And it exists also on Windows 10 and newer - it is a limitation now in Windows applications, inherited by a limit in early versions of Windows operating system. R itself doesn't have this limitation anymore.> ??? However, the official documentation at this address: > > https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/R-exts.html#Package-structure-1 > > ??? States: > > > /packages are normally distributed as tarballs, and these have a > limit on path lengths: for maximal portability 100 bytes. > > /??? This is the wrong explanation. Tar has been supporting 256-chars > paths since POSIX.1-1988 and unlimited paths since POSIX.1-2001. The > limitation should be deferred to MS Windows instead of tar. > > ??? Considering that the manuals are ? /edited by the R Development > Core Team /? <https://cran.r-project.org/manuals.html>, I suppose that > this is the right list to point out this inconsistency? How can I help > in fixing this? Should I open a bug at R Bugzilla? > > ??? Note: I am not discussing whether the limit itself should be > reconsidered. That discussion seems yet covered by the aforementioned > thread (but it's non-official), and by bug #18637 > <https://bugs.r-project.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18637> (but it's stale). In > any case, I think there is no blocker to clarifying the situation in the > documentation.I have added a sentence to R-exts mentioning Windows is also a reason why it makes sense to keep paths short. Best Tomas> > ??? Best regards, > > -- > Iago-lito > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] > > ______________________________________________ > R-devel at r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel