Bryan Wagstaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm confused about the 'saving the differences' issue. Are we
> considering delayed delete, automatic versioning, both, or something
> else entirely?
If you are keeping versions, there is no reason you have to keep N
different copies of nearly-identi
I'm confused about the 'saving the differences' issue. Are we
considering delayed delete, automatic versioning, both, or something
else entirely?
On one side I hear that we are saving diferences (versioning) and on
the other I hear that we are only saving files opened with O_TRUNC,
which are com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Niels Möller) writes:
>
> My main concern is that the file update pattern open, write, close,
> should be atomic when seen by other processes. I.e if some other
> process opens the file for reading in the middle of the update, it
> should see the previous version, independently
Bryan Wagstaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >But basically, yeah, if someone opens for O_WRONLY, writes, and
> >closes, it would be nice if the old contents were cleanly saved as a
> >"version".
> >
>
> That could get really nasty when it comes to large files that are
> opened/closed frequently
On Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 11:04:11AM -0400, Neal H. Walfield wrote:
> Linking statically against libpthread is not yet supported. Glibc
> uses some weak symbols to detected if it should enable multithreaded
I was able to run statically linked tests from libpthread when using
this script instead of
