Re: Bug#677865: Re: Bug#677865: dpkg-gencontrol warns about 'File::FcntlLock not available'
Hi,
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 05:54:26PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > ... But they might argue that you already can get
> > fcntl(2) used for locking instead of flock(2) by building Perl with
> > "-Ud_flock" (don't ask me why that's not the default anyway;-)
> > Perhaps building the Perl version distributed with Debian with
> > that option might be another solution?
>
> I don't think switching perl in Debian to use fcntl(2) would be a good
> idea as the perl documentation states that this would change the
> semantics for the flock perl function too, which could easily break
> code around.
Yes, that would be a problem. Another way might be to convince
the Perl people to introduce a third (optional) argument to the
flock() function, allowing to specify which sort of locking is
to be used. This might also be beneficial for other purposes,
e.g., if one knows an application uses lock(3) type locking and
one writes a Perl program to interoperate with it one also has
to use that method (or both programs will get a "lock", bliss-
fully unaware that the other one is using a different locking
method of). Perhaps something like that would be easier to argue
for than the inclusion a module that is rather system-specific in
that it requires the existence of a fcntl(2) system call.
I'd be prepared to try to implement itif you think that it could
be a viable solution to the problem - perhaps at first only as a
patch to the Perl version Debian distributes. Though I can't make
any promises about that: I first have to have a goood look at the
Perl sources to see how difficult it will be - it might very well
be far beyond my skills level;-)
Best regards, Jens
--
\ Jens Thoms Toerring ________ jt@toerring.de
\_______________________________ http://toerring.de
Reply to: