Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!uwvax!umn-d-ub!umn-cs!bungia!ahby From: ahby@bungia.Bungia.MN.ORG (Shane P. McCarron) Newsgroups: news.software.b Subject: Re: yes, there *are* copylefted dbm-like routines with the right stuff Message-ID: <266@bungia.Bungia.MN.ORG> Date: 18 Jun 88 19:02:02 GMT References: Reply-To: ahby@bungia.UUCP (Shane P. McCarron) Organization: Bugoslavian Embassy, St. Paul, MN Lines: 13 In article eric@snark.UUCP (Eric S. Raymond) writes: >Furthermore, this code includes a LOCKF option that compiles proper multiuser >interlocking for concurrent access using POSIX/SVID lockf(3) or XENIX-style >locking(2). A test exerciser is provided to verify these functions. Just a side note. The latest version of the POSIX 1003.1 Standard does not include the lockf() function. Instead, the working group went in favor of the fcntl() mechanism that is in the SVID. The group felt that the lockf() mechanism was lacking some obscure functionality that could be obtained through fcntl(). Sorry. -- Shane P. McCarron UUCP: ahby@bungia.mn.org Systems Analyst ATT: +1 612 224-9239