Re: Independent lockfile package.

[apharris@burrito.onshore.com (Adam P. Harris)]

Rob Browning <rlb@cs.utexas.edu> 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
encourage you.

> 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/>