From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rob Browning Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: MAIL_USE_FLOCK and Debian. Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 13:22:26 -0600 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <874r6yiwp9.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> References: <87lm0ijabw.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> <87znoxi93a.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> <87ptpqhqjp.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> <87el657f8y.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> <87adgs2o25.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1045769902 21335 80.91.224.249 (20 Feb 2003 19:38:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 19:38:22 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18lwWQ-0005XY-00 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 20:38:18 +0100 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18lwk5-0003oQ-00 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 20:52:25 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 18lwUK-0001Nv-06 for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 14:36:08 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 18lwSn-0000fi-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 14:34:33 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 18lwJl-0006VW-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 14:25:14 -0500 Original-Received: from dsl093-098-016.wdc1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.93.98.16] helo=defaultvalue.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 18lwH5-0005wl-00; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 14:22:27 -0500 Original-Received: from raven.i.defaultvalue.org (raven.i.defaultvalue.org [192.168.1.7]) by defaultvalue.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D32B811F2; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 13:22:25 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: by raven.i.defaultvalue.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1165FCBA7A; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 13:22:26 -0600 (CST) Original-To: rms@gnu.org In-Reply-To: (Richard Stallman's message of "Thu, 20 Feb 2003 13:21:07 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.090008 (Oort Gnus v0.08) Emacs/21.2 (i386-pc-linux-gnu) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b5 Precedence: list List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:11794 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:11794 Richard Stallman writes: > This seems to mean that we have to decide at build time. If it has to > be decided at build time, the best thing to do is let configure choose > which library to use. Given the discussion so far, it seems like we could: - provide a run-time choice between the flock/lockf and maillock approaches on systems that support both, along with a configure-time choice between the liblockfile and libmail implementations of maillock when relevant. - provide a run-time choice between flock/lockf, maillock via libmail, and the liblockfile algorithm. With this approach, we wouldn't use liblockfile itself (because its maillock would conflict with libmail's), just the code. Though direct use of the code definitely has potential maintenance issues, at least as far as Debian policy is concerned, I believe that just implementing the algorithm is acceptable. Of course, if we did use the code directly, we'd need copyright assignments. - build-time choice only -- similar to what we have now, but perhaps with an added --with-mail-locking=FOO which would require a specific approach. -- Rob Browning rlb @defaultvalue.org, @linuxdevel.com, and @debian.org Previously @cs.utexas.edu GPG starting 2002-11-03 = 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592 F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4