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: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 13:21:07 -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> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1045765816 630 80.91.224.249 (20 Feb 2003 18:30:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 18:30:16 +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 18lvSQ-00009e-00 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 19:30:06 +0100 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18lvg3-00039p-00 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 19:44:11 +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 18lvLZ-0001n7-06 for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 13:23:01 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 18lvKL-0000ng-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 13:21:45 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 18lvK3-0000Yo-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 13:21:28 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 18lvJk-0000E7-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 13:21:08 -0500 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.10) id 18lvJj-0002De-00; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 13:21:07 -0500 Original-To: Rob Browning In-reply-to: <87adgs2o25.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> (message from Rob Browning on Wed, 19 Feb 2003 11:11:14 -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:11793 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:11793 In addition to the thread-safe, lower-level locking functions like lockfile_create, liblockfile also provides maillock and touchlock convenience functions, so if we're on a system that has both libmail and liblockfile, which do we choose? Unless we were going to do something like runtime dynamic linking, we'll have to link against one lib or the other at build time. 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. Is there any reason that movemail has to be one executable? Why not make movemail into a wrapper around three programs that implement (each implementing one strategy)? I have nothing against this in principle, but it is full of pitfalls. Many things can go wrong, and fixing them would require further attention. For instance, movemail needs to be able to find the other executables, and that won't be trivial. (We're talking about installing movemail in /usr/bin.) So we should avoid this unless it is absolutely necessary.