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 ...
>