Re: bug maintenance, last comment.
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 08:48:15AM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
>Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> My analysis was that it's unreasonable to ask a program
>> written in perl to use fcntl
>
>That's weird, there's
>
>a) POSIX::fcntl
Which simply calls CORE::fcntl.
The fact that there is an entry point for the system call however
doesn't mean that it's reasonable to use however (see
http://lists.debian.org/debian-perl/2005/12/msg00044.html).
>b) strace perl -e 'flock(1, "/etc/passwd")' 2>&1 |egrep '^flock|^fcntl'
> fcntl64(3, F_SETFD, FD_CLOEXEC) = 0
>
> perl has used fcntl internally for its flock builtin for some time
Which is an implementation detail that you probably shouldn't be too
concerned about. On Debian/k*BSD you may find that a real flock is
used.
All of which is fairly irrelevant. Exactly which kind of locking is
used shouldn't really make any difference so long as all processes
updating the file use the same mechanism.
Is install-info the only process which updates /usr/share/info/dir? Or
does emacs also modify this file?
--bod
Reply to: