From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 8 10:02:36 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39C8F16A417 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2007 10:02:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from se@FreeBSD.org) Received: from spacemail1-out.mgmt.space.net (spacemail1-out.mgmt.Space.Net [194.97.149.146]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B406913C45A for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2007 10:02:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from se@FreeBSD.org) X-SpaceNet-SBRS: None X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,242,1188770400"; d="scan'208";a="66977589" Received: from mail.atsec.com ([195.30.252.105]) by spacemail1-out.mgmt.space.net with ESMTP; 08 Oct 2007 12:02:34 +0200 Received: from [10.2.2.88] (frueh.atsec.com [217.110.13.170]) (Authenticated sender: se@atsec.com) by mail.atsec.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF5DE72091C; Mon, 8 Oct 2007 12:02:33 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <470A0038.5070802@FreeBSD.org> Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 12:02:32 +0200 From: Stefan Esser User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexander Leidinger References: <20071007105235.GA2505@StefanEsser.FreeBSD.org> <20071007171541.4bd00627@deskjail> <470939B5.2090309@FreeBSD.org> <20071008091806.4gum80p05ckwc480@webmail.leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <20071008091806.4gum80p05ckwc480@webmail.leidinger.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [Patch] man page nsswitch(5) still references cached in -CURRENT X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 10:02:36 -0000 Alexander Leidinger wrote: > Quoting Stefan Esser (from Sun, 07 Oct 2007 21:55:33 > +0200): >>> Why do you think it is a length limit which is the cause of the >>> problems you see? >> >> Well, see the last two lines, 63 chars long, 10 for "OLD_FILES+=" and >> 53 chars for the file name. It may be that files were added to the list >> by a cut&paste action and that some characters had wrapped around to >> the next line and were forgotten. But it is not relevant, just strange. > > So you don't think it is a length limitation in make which causes the > problem, but a length limitation somewhere before adding it to > ObsoleteFiles.inc? No, it probably is no limit in any part of the infrastructure. Both these short lines were added with revision 1.7, 2 years ago, but there were longer lines in that commit, which are complete. So, there is no issue that needs fixing, except for the two affected lines ... Regards, STefan