Re: [Nmh-workers] nmh-1.1-RC4 post /dev/,LCK.* problem

[rader]

 > > This is an issue with dot locking that I brought up about two years ago,
 > > but apparently never opened a bug for.  This change in behavior is a
 > > good reason not to use dot locking as the default.
 > > 
 > > I just opened a bug report for it:
 > > https://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/index.php?func=detailitem&item_id=14977
 > > 
 > > I have been successfully using lockf locking over NFS for a couple
 > > years.
 
 > Dot locking is the only kind of locking guaranteed to be `supported' on
 > all/most servers, so I don't see how any other default is sensible.
 > 
 > Maybe I'm misunderstanding something.

Isn't it common knowledge that lockf() is not entirely portable?
Nmh does not live in a SVR4/POSIX-only world.

 > Anyway, I think the best might be for nmh to refuse to manipulate (create,
 > edit, etc.) files that it cannot dotlock. I'm not sure whether that
 > refusal should be a fatal error for the entire command being executed,
 > or a warning and partial success of the command.

Either a fatal error or a warning would have save folks
from confusion and unhappiness.

But also: is there some compelling reason to lock aliases
files before they are read?  I can't think of one.

steve
- - -