[Guy Harris <gharris@xxxxxxxxx>]

Rich Coe wrote:
> I think that replacing strcpy with a library function that (eventually)
> calls strcpy (strncpy)

If any snprintf-like function calls strcpy() on %s strings, it's buggy, 
so that probably should be stated as "that (eventually) calls strncpy or 
strlcpy".  Replacing calls to strcpy() or strcat() is neither pointless 
nor stupid unless the calls in question have done *correct* bounds 
checking already, and it's probably a bit error prone either to

	1) require that the bounds checks be done correctly (as you have to 
check how much space is left in the string)

or even

	2) require that they be done at all.

One might argue that using strlcpy() and strlcat() would be better than 
using snprintf() or g_snprintf(); to do that, we'd have to supply our 
own strlcpy() and strlcat() if the platform for which we're building 
doesn't have them.

Now, in at least some cases, the function that arguably should *really* 
be used is proto_item_append_text()....