From: Johannes Thyssen Tishman <johannes@thyssentishman.com>
Subject: Re: repository description in gotwebd.conf
To: Stefan Sperling <stsp@stsp.name>
Cc: gameoftrees@openbsd.org
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2026 10:09:05 +0000

2026-01-12T12:08:43+0100 Stefan Sperling <stsp@stsp.name>:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 10:21:49AM +0000, Johannes Thyssen Tishman wrote:
> > 2026-01-10T18:00:25+0100 Stefan Sperling <stsp@stsp.name>:
> > > I would like to allow setting repository descriptions in gotwebd.conf.
> > > Use of this feature is optional and the behaviour remains unchanged if
> > > the feature is not used.
> > > 
> > > Having this feature will make it easier to support setting repository
> > > descriptions for gotwebd via gotsysd. Write descriptions directly to
> > > gotwebd.conf avoids having to overwrite every repository's description
> > > file on disk.
> > > 
> > > ok?
> > > -file in the repository should be updated with an appropriate description.
> > > +file in the repository should be updated with an appropriate description,
> > 
> > We can leave the period here.
> 
> Thanks, I'll fix this.
> 
> > > @@ -942,6 +942,17 @@ repoopts1	: DISABLE AUTHENTICATION {
> > >  		| HIDE REPOSITORY boolean {
> > >  			new_repo->hidden = $3;
> > >  		}
> > > +		| DESCRIPTION STRING {
> > > +			n = strlcpy(new_repo->description, $2,
> > > +			    sizeof(new_repo->description));
> > > +			if (n >= sizeof(new_repo->description)) {
> > > +				yyerror("repository description too long, "
> > > +				    "exceeds %zd bytes",
> > > +				    sizeof(new_repo->description) - 1);
> > > +				free($2);
> > > +				YYERROR;
> > > +			}
> > > +		}
> > >  		;
> > 
> > Couldn't we store sizeof(new_repo->description) in a variable here (or
> > use GOTWEBD_MAXDESCRSZ) to avoid calling sizeof() three times? I
> > understand that strlcpy writes to new_repo->description, but AFAIC we
> > only care about it's maximum size (GOTWEBD_MAXDESCRSZ), no?
> 
> sizeof is an operator, not a function. It is evaluated at compile-time.
> See the EXAMPLES section of the strlcpy(3) manual for the origin of
> this idiom, which we use extensitively in our code base.
> 
> i think this is fine as it is. It may be a bit verbose but it is consistent
> with other places in the our tree which use this idiom.

Understood. Thanks for clarifying :)