[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking - which to use?
From: |
David Levine |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking - which to use? |
Date: |
Sun, 05 Feb 2012 22:12:16 -0500 |
Lyndon wrote:
> On 2012-02-05, at 4:04 PM, David Levine wrote:
> > procmail can be configured to use whatever locking a user
> > wants. Let's leave nmh that way, too.
>
> And again, an end user configuring their system into a
> stupid state is not justification for nmh to follow suit.
Shun fcntl, but when someone discards their /bin/mail that
uses it: "stupid".
And again, I'm not asking for nmh to be "stupid". I am all
for sensible defaults. If someone wants to choose a
different locking scheme for whatever reason, it doesn't
bother me. If they can do it at runtime, even better.
> How about submitting a patch set
Your order has no effect on my priorities.
> that makes nmh work reasonably under
> cygwin. I'm not the only person who would rejoice.
As a matter of fact, I have fixed some things. The build is
reasonably clean. inc and folder operations seem to work.
whatnow doesn't, maybe because of (v)fork. post doesn't,
but I haven't looked at it even to determine if it's a
nmh problem.
David
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking - which to use?, (continued)
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking - which to use?, David Levine, 2012/02/05
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking - which to use?, David Levine, 2012/02/05
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking - which to use?, David Levine, 2012/02/05
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking - which to use?, David Levine, 2012/02/05
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking - which to use?, David Levine, 2012/02/05
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking - which to use?,
David Levine <=