Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!gvlf3.gvl.unisys.com!lgnp1!phil
From: phil@ls.com (Phil Eschallier)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.elm
Subject: Re: Will ELM ever use lockf()?
Message-ID: <5062@lgnp1.ls.com>
Date: 26 Mar 91 12:46:04 GMT
References: <1991Mar25.193741.12360@coplex.uucp>
Organization: Lagniappe Systems [Doylestown, PA]
Lines: 31

In article <1991Mar25.193741.12360@coplex.uucp> dean@coplex.uucp (Dean Brooks) writes:
>Hello,
>
>   Elm wants to use "flock()" or ".lock" files.  Smail wants to
>use "flock()", "lockf()" or its own weird type of lock files.
>
>   Now, we do not have "flock()" on our system (and many other V3.2
>systems).  Since smail doesn't recognize elm's locking, and vice
>versa, I have a REAL nasty problem.
>
>   If elm were to support "lockf()" all my problems would be gone.  Are
>there any hopes in the future of this being included in the elm source?
>

	correct me if i am wrong but this seems like a trivial problem --
	there are several places to get code that emulates flock() using
	lockf().  the first that comes to mind is the support directory
	in the distribution of sendmail 5.65 + IDA ... the code is not
	public domain but it is freely distributed.  if using this would
	break some law that i am not aware of, i'll write a 10 line procedure
	to do the equivilent.

	then -- couldn't you just tell elm's configuration that you will
	use flock() and link in this procedure ??


-- 
Phil Eschallier     |  E-Mail to:                    US Mail to:
                    |   INET: phil@ls.com             248B Union Street
Lagniappe Systems   |   UUCP: ...!uunet!lgnp1!phil    Doylestown, PA  18901
Computer Services   |    CIS: 71076,1576              VOICE: +1 215 348 9721