Re: Independent lockfile package.
Rob Browning <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> In any case, I've written a tiny wrapper program that I was going to
> release as liblockfile-progs.
As an early recipient of this source from you, I applaud this idea and
> As a nit, I think mailunlock(3) and touchlock(3) should have taken a
> "char *user" argument since maillock(3) does. You might want to lock
> a mailbox from one process, and unlock it from another. I can get
> around this by implementing everything in terms of lockfile_remove,
> etc, but it would be nice to use the functions designed for the
> purpose. Though I suspect there's probably some historical precedent
> to respect.
Well, sounds like a likely wishlist bug against liblockfile ?
.....A. P. Harris...apharris@onShore.com...<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>