[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl M. Hegbloom) writes:
> I think that it is probably fine like it is, except that it's not nfs
> safe without libnfslock. It could probably be rewritten some to call
> on our liblockfile, rather than doing it internally the way it does.
Does xemacs implement maillock itsel
> "Rob" == Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Rob> Maybe you already knew this, but I just got around to looking
Rob> at the movemail source for emacs 20, and it really looks like
Rob> movemail already knows how to handle liblockfile. Check out
Rob> MAIL_USE_MAILLOCK and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl M. Hegbloom) writes:
> > "Rob" == Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Rob> Assuming you're right, and movemail is used for all mail
> Rob> locking, then if we patch movemail to use liblockfile, we
> Rob> should be fine.
>
> I volunteer to try rol
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl M. Hegbloom) writes:
> I volunteer to try rolling those patches into XEmacs 20.5. I think
> that configure ought to detect `liblockfile' and compile `movemail'
> accordingly. Sound right?
Sounds good, but perhaps it should just fail to build on a debian
system if libl
> "Rob" == Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Rob> Assuming you're right, and movemail is used for all mail
Rob> locking, then if we patch movemail to use liblockfile, we
Rob> should be fine.
I volunteer to try rolling those patches into XEmacs 20.5. I think
that configur
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl M. Hegbloom) writes:
> I don't think that the dot locking done by `movemail' is nfs-aware.
> You'd need to use libnfslock for that, I guess, or patch `movemail'.
Assuming you're right, and movemail is used for all mail locking, then
if we patch movemail to use liblockfil
... more to say, now that I read what I wrote...
I don't think that the dot locking done by `movemail' is nfs-aware.
You'd need to use libnfslock for that, I guess, or patch `movemail'.
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e
> "Rob" == Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Rob> OK, then I'll assume that we want to hack emacs to use
Rob> liblockfile. This requires repeatedly calling touchlock() to
Rob> keep the lockfile from being deleted during the period when
Rob> the lock is being held. I th
David Frey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It isn't. The old policy mandated dot-lock, IIRC.
OK, then I'll assume that we want to hack emacs to use liblockfile.
This requires repeatedly calling touchlock() to keep the lockfile from
being deleted during the period when the lock is being held. I thi
On 18 Dec 1997, Rob Browning wrote:
> My question is, should I modify emacs to use maillock from liblockdev,
> or it the emacs mechanism OK (what about NFS)?
Note, that the policy requires you to use "libfilelock" (not "liblockdev"
which is just for devices) to lock mail folders--or implement a c
On Thu, Dec 18 1997 12:16 CST Rob Browning writes:
> /* On GNU/Linux systems, both methods are used by various mail
> programs. I assume that most people are using newer mailers that
> have heard of flock. Change this if you need to. */
>
> #define MAIL_USE_FLOCK
>
> And here's th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark W. Eichin) writes:
> I'll note that emacs19 does what was right at one point, *before*
> liblockfile was written; I don't know if they're compatible but figure
> that before debian 2.0 it would be safest to code up a fix. (Or steal
> your code from emacs20 :-)
My suspicio
I'll note that emacs19 does what was right at one point, *before*
liblockfile was written; I don't know if they're compatible but figure
that before debian 2.0 it would be safest to code up a fix. (Or steal
your code from emacs20 :-)
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "uns
13 matches
Mail list logo
