Argument list too long.

[Dag Wieers]

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003, Sean Estabrooks wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 18:30:49 +0200 (CEST)
> Dag Wieers <dag at wieers.com> wrote:
> 
> > On 11 Sep 2003, Tom Tromey wrote:
> > 
> > > >>>>> "Dag" == Dag Wieers <dag at wieers.com> writes:
> >
> > Ok, then I'm on the right list afterall ;)
> > 
> > Please Red Hat change rpm so that I can sign packages without giving them 
> > as arguments and without having to enter my passphrase for each (set of) 
> > packages.
> > 
> > This seems really silly to me however and this was just an example. Fact 
> > is that most scripts suffer from this and as usual people will only notice 
> > this when the script fails (with potential data-loss, manual correction 
> > and other horrible things). </scare-tactics>
> > 
> 
>      But this is _exactly_ the point that goes against your own argument.   If 
> you accept that there has to be some upper limit then a properly written
> script will always have to guard against such buffer overflows.   No matter
> what limit you pick.

I'm not arguing that if you increase the limit, there's no limit anymore. 
(Doh!) The only thing I'm trying to say is that maybe after 10 years (or 
when was this 128Kb limit added?) memory isn't much a problem now and for 
the common case 128Kb could easily be 256Kb without anyone noticing (and 
without causing any more problems).

And as you say most people wouldn't have this problem, well, increasing it 
to 256Kb will not cause any extra problems either. It's not that you are 
obliged to fill the 256Kb or anything. No overhead.

So, since you haven't had any problems with it, why are you against it ?

--   dag wieers,  dag at wieers.com,  http://dag.wieers.com/   --
[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]