Re: XEmacs' pathname canonicalization versus Red Hat Linux 7's realpath()
Ulrich Drepper <drepper(a)redhat.com> writes:
Martin Buchholz <martin(a)xemacs.org> writes:
> I think 20 is too low. I worked in an environment years ago we had a
> real problem with the limit of 20, that required reengineering the way
> the project was organized. There can be good reasons for using
> symlinks, for example imagine many trees of sparsely populated
> symlinks pointing at other such trees.
>
> I recommend at least bumping the limit to 32, which is XEmacs'
> hardcoded limit.
Nope. If 20 isn't enough you are in big trouble.
That may or may not be. Why *refuse* a removal of an arbitrary limit?
As I've said, 20 is not an arbitrary choice, it is what others
do.
How have "others" came up with that number? It looks like it's picked
as an arbitrary "large" value for this context.