Ping.

On 9/9/26 7:28 PM, Volker Schlecht wrote:
> 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 ...
>>
>