RE: [MiNT] expanded /proc vs new /kern

[Jo-Even.Skarstein@gjensidige.no]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin-Eric Racine [mailto:q-funk@pp.fishpool.fi]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 1999 3:10 AM
> To: Lonny Pursell
> Cc: mint
> Subject: RE: [MiNT] expanded /proc vs new /kern
> 
> > >Again, as I mentioned in the post you just answered, _where_
> > >does it says _explicitely_ it must be 8+3?
> > 
> > Page 2.16 of the Compendium, the book you say tells all.
> > Even shows an example how the names in \proc are derived.
> 
> Sorry, I cannot agree.  

As much as I hate to admit it, M-E is right and I was wrong :,-(

> I previously quoted that part and it says "_might_ have an entry
> miniwin.003" which still doesn't explicit that it must be 8+3; it
> only states filename without extension, plus an extension
> consisting of the pid.

That's right, nowhere does it explicitly say that the base of the filename
is limited to 8 characters. The only thing that's explicitly documented is
the length and format of the extension. This basically means that you could
change /proc to support processnames like "This-is-a_REALLY_weird
filename.with odd_ÆØÅ[]characters.in.it.348" and it wouldn't contradict the
docs. Naturally, I'm going to update my software to support this highly
critical and important feature ;-)

Somebody suggested that there might be need for a new domain
(Pdomain(LINUX)perhaps...), I now see the need for that too.

Jo Even Skarstein