🚀 go-pugleaf

chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:

>According to gemini@geminix.in-berlin.de (Uwe Doering):
>>Following this patch, there is another one that shows how to convince
>>Smail 3.1.20 to use lock files instead of lockf() unter SysVr3. Maybe
>>this works for earlier Smail releases, too.
>
>The patches posted by Uwe for Elm are much appreciated.
>
>His patches for Smail, however, are *far* more than is required.
>Smail 3 already has a knob that controls mailbox locking specifically.
>In conf/EDITME, and in conf/os/<your-os-here>, do *not* set
>FLOCK_MAILBOX.  That's it.  (See the comments in conf/os/sys5* for
>further description of of FLOCK_MAILBOX.)

You're right. I read the comments in conf/os/template again and came
to the same conclusion. I checked conf/EDITME and conf/os/sys5.3 and
found out that by default, the FLOCK_MAILBOX define is _not_ set.
Obviously, for SysVr3, nothing needs to be changed in smail 3.1 to use
lock files for the mailbox (provided that one didn't define FLOCK_MAILBOX
deliberately). So all one has to do to use Smail 3.1 together with
Elm 2.3 is to patch Elm's lock() function. Right?

     Uwe
-- 
Uwe Doering  |  INET : gemini@geminix.in-berlin.de
Berlin       |----------------------------------------------------------------
Germany      |  UUCP : ...!unido!fub!geminix.in-berlin.de!gemini