Ping. On 9/9/26 7:28 PM, Volker Schlecht wrote: > Done: https://github.com/libuv/libuv/issues/5269 > > Since upstream can't reasonably implement either solution (or decide not > to change anything) before we released 8.0, can I get an ok for > https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=178889314754679&w=2 then? > > On 9/9/26 12:07 AM, Theo de Raadt wrote: >> Please tell upstream of the concerns. >> >> Volker Schlecht <openbsd-ports@schlecht.dev> wrote: >> >>> ... alternatively, here's a simple wrapper around getexecpath(3), >>> with adjusted test cases to document where we deviate from upstream's >>> default behavior - might be harder to upstream once 8.0 is released, >>> but it's worth a shot. >>> >>> On 9/8/26 7:46 PM, Volker Schlecht wrote: >>>> Here's an attempt to switch libuv to getexecpath(3). >>>> It builds, tests pass, afaict it behaves the same as the other >>>> implementations (i.e. it copies a truncated path and no error >>>> when the path doesn't fit into the buffer). >>>> In lang/node it allows me to drop the current workaround to make >>>> process.execPath work. >>>> It could probably use some adult supervision, though ... >> >
No comments:
Post a Comment