Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!caen!ox.com!math.fu-berlin.de!fub!geminix.in-berlin.de!gemini From: gemini@geminix.in-berlin.de (Uwe Doering) Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc Subject: Re: Will ELM ever use lockf()? Message-ID: Date: 12 Apr 91 22:45:52 GMT References: <1991Mar30.213039.28713@coplex.uucp> <27FA24B0.5244@tct.com> <2800BA22.1CAE@tct.com> Organization: Private UNIX Site Lines: 28 chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >According to gemini@geminix.in-berlin.de (Uwe Doering): >>Following this patch, there is another one that shows how to convince >>Smail 3.1.20 to use lock files instead of lockf() unter SysVr3. Maybe >>this works for earlier Smail releases, too. > >The patches posted by Uwe for Elm are much appreciated. > >His patches for Smail, however, are *far* more than is required. >Smail 3 already has a knob that controls mailbox locking specifically. >In conf/EDITME, and in conf/os/, do *not* set >FLOCK_MAILBOX. That's it. (See the comments in conf/os/sys5* for >further description of of FLOCK_MAILBOX.) You're right. I read the comments in conf/os/template again and came to the same conclusion. I checked conf/EDITME and conf/os/sys5.3 and found out that by default, the FLOCK_MAILBOX define is _not_ set. Obviously, for SysVr3, nothing needs to be changed in smail 3.1 to use lock files for the mailbox (provided that one didn't define FLOCK_MAILBOX deliberately). So all one has to do to use Smail 3.1 together with Elm 2.3 is to patch Elm's lock() function. Right? Uwe -- Uwe Doering | INET : gemini@geminix.in-berlin.de Berlin |---------------------------------------------------------------- Germany | UUCP : ...!unido!fub!geminix.in-berlin.de!gemini