From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: MAIL_USE_FLOCK and Debian. Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 16:44:39 -0500 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: 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> <874r6yiwp9.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1045864200 8757 80.91.224.249 (21 Feb 2003 21:50:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 21:50:00 +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 18mL3P-0002H5-00 for ; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 22:49:59 +0100 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18mLHa-0001qr-00 for ; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 23:04:38 +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 18mL0A-0008DA-05 for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 16:46:38 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 18mKzp-00088R-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 16:46:17 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 18mKyG-0007GC-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 16:44:44 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 18mKyG-0007Fh-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 16:44:40 -0500 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.10) id 18mKyF-0005wu-00; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 16:44:39 -0500 Original-To: Rob Browning In-reply-to: <874r6yiwp9.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> (message from Rob Browning on Thu, 20 Feb 2003 13:22:26 -0600) 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:11826 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:11826 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. The second is a real pain. Do you really want to go to that much trouble? If not, our choices are the first and the last. Would you like to do the first one?