Re: Then there's PATH_MAX

Liste des GroupesRevenir à col advocacy 
Sujet : Re: Then there's PATH_MAX
De : vallor (at) *nospam* cultnix.org (vallor)
Groupes : comp.os.linux.advocacy
Date : 10. Dec 2024, 11:29:24
Autres entêtes
Message-ID : <lrqjg4Ft7poU2@mid.individual.net>
References : 1 2 3
User-Agent : Pan/0.161 (Hmm2; be402cc9; Linux-6.12.4)
On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 04:41:01 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote in <vj8got$qq2p$2@dont-email.me>:

On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 22:42:48 -0500, DFS wrote:
 
Surely you know NTFS supports file paths up to 32,767 characters?
 
HAHAHAHAHA!!!!
 
<https://stackoverflow.com/questions/14500893/is-the-255-char-limit-for-
filenames-on-windows-and-unix-the-whole-path-or-part>

Interesting how the OS doesn't measure up to the (alleged) filesystem
design.

--
-v System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3090 Ti
   OS: Linux 6.12.4 Release: Mint 21.3 Mem: 258G

Date Sujet#  Auteur
9 Dec 24 * Then there's PATH_MAX13vallor
9 Dec 24 +- Re: Then there's PATH_MAX1Chris Ahlstrom
10 Dec 24 +* Re: Then there's PATH_MAX5DFS
10 Dec 24 i`* Re: Then there's PATH_MAX4Lawrence D'Oliveiro
10 Dec 24 i +- Re: Then there's PATH_MAX1vallor
10 Dec 24 i +- Re: Then there's PATH_MAX1Chris Ahlstrom
11 Dec 24 i `- Re: Then there's PATH_MAX1DFS
10 Dec 24 `* Re: Then there's PATH_MAX6Farley Flud
10 Dec 24  +- Re: Then there's PATH_MAX1Chris Ahlstrom
10 Dec 24  `* Fine, let's see you using pathconf(3) on Windows (was: Re: Then there's PATH_MAX)4vallor
10 Dec 24   `* Re: Fine, let's see you using pathconf(3) on Windows (was: Re: Then there's PATH_MAX)3Farley Flud
10 Dec 24    `* Re: Fine, let's see you using pathconf(3) on Windows (was: Re: Then there's PATH_MAX)2vallor
11 Dec 24     `- Re: Fine, let's see you using pathconf(3) on Windows (was: Re: Then there's PATH_MAX)1vallor

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal