Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!qantel!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020 From: mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Thomas J Keller) Newsgroups: net.bugs.uucp Subject: Re: uucico/uuxqt bugs...howcome? Message-ID: <916@gilbbs.UUCP> Date: Wed, 17-Sep-86 18:33:09 EDT Article-I.D.: gilbbs.916 Posted: Wed Sep 17 18:33:09 1986 Date-Received: Fri, 19-Sep-86 23:05:54 EDT References: <900@gilbbs.UUCP> <612@pyramid.UUCP> <914@gilbbs.UUCP> <614@pyramid.UUCP> Organization: Gil's Place, Santa Rosa CA Lines: 40 Summary: i am an egg In article <614@pyramid.UUCP>, csg@pyramid.UUCP (Carl S. Gutekunst) writes: > In article <914@gilbbs.UUCP> mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Thomas J Keller) writes: > > Yes, well. I have now had innumerable responses to my queries regarding > >XQT lock files. Many people have suggested touching the file from cron. AS > >it happens, that doesn't work. > > > > According to a contact at a site with source license, UUCP checks the > >CREATION time, as opposed to the modification time of the lock file. > > Your contact with a source license should learn to read man pages. :-) > > This gets hashed out in unix-wizards every six months or so: there's no such > thing as "creation time." UUCP checks ctime, which is the the "last status > change time," literally the last time the inode changed. Since pretty darn > near anything you can do to a file changes the inode, touching the lock file > works just fine. > Well, i am an egg. I will not presume to argue with someone of Carl's experience regarding UNIX internals. All I can say is that when I had a shell script merely "touching" my XQT lock file, I occasionally still wound up with additional XQT processes running (sometimes with as little as a few minutes between start-times). When I altered my script to actually COPY the lock file, remove the original and copy the copy back to the original name again (all with a nice --10 in front of it) the problem seems to have gone away. I am going to remove news unbatching from the purvue of uuxqt, which is a better approach anyway. Thanks to everyone for their assistance and patience. -- Disclaimer: Disclaimer? DISCLAIMER!? I don't need no stinking DISCLAIMER!!! tom keller "She's alive, ALIVE!" {ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020 (* we may not be big, but we're small! *)