From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 23 19:11:54 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D642A16A4CE for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2005 19:11:54 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp2.server.rpi.edu (smtp2.server.rpi.edu [128.113.2.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E514443D1D for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2005 19:11:53 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from drosih@rpi.edu) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.netel.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by smtp2.server.rpi.edu (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j1NJBoVU028673; Wed, 23 Feb 2005 14:11:52 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20050223094647.D6CC01D9F4@turtle.stack.nl> References: <20050223094647.D6CC01D9F4@turtle.stack.nl> Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 14:11:50 -0500 To: marcov@stack.nl (Marco van de Voort), freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org From: Garance A Drosihn Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-CanItPRO-Stream: default X-RPI-SA-Score: undef - spam-scanning disabled X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . canit . ca) on 128.113.2.2 Subject: Re: ARG_MAX increase X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 19:11:55 -0000 At 10:46 AM +0100 2/23/05, Marco van de Voort wrote: >I saw ARG_MAX was increased in 6.0. Recently I noticed that >the lang/fpc-devel port currently hits the old limit in >certain (though rare) cases), and this is annoying. > >(some testing revealed that half the increase of 6.0 >to 131k params is also ok) > >Any chance ARG_MAX will be upped in -STABLE too? For this specific example, it would be better to fix the port. The port has to work on many releases in addition to 5.x-stable and 6.x-current. We can't change ARG_MAX in all of those releases to fix the port. We certainly can't change it in 5.3-RELEASE (because that's sitting on CD's), and we probably aren't going to change it in 5.3-ERRATA (the "minimal change security branch", which many people run on production servers), and it's even less likely that we'll change it in 4.x-stable. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu