[Dovecot] 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
On 15.6.2013, at 16.24, Svante Signell svante.signell@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.
On Tue, 2013-06-18 at 08:37 +0200, Stephan Bosch wrote:
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
Thanks a lot :)
On Tue, 2013-06-18 at 12:25 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
On Tue, 2013-06-18 at 08:37 +0200, Stephan Bosch wrote:
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
Thanks a lot :)
Are you planning to make a new (minor) release of pigeonhole soon, just to know what to submit in the bug report to the Debian maintainer?
participants (3)
-
Stephan Bosch
-
Svante Signell
-
Timo Sirainen