Bug 16342

Summary: elm should also do .lock ing
Product: [Retired] Red Hat Linux Reporter: Bill Pemberton <wfp5p>
Component: elmAssignee: Trond Eivind Glomsrxd <teg>
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX QA Contact:
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 7.0   
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: i386   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2000-08-16 14:17:39 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Description Bill Pemberton 2000-08-16 13:53:31 UTC 
Elm is configured to only do fcntl() locking.  It should be built to also
do .lock since you can't be sure that everything else dealing with
mailboxes understands fcntl() and only fcntl().
Comment 1 Jeff Johnson 2000-08-16 14:12:58 UTC 
Since Red Hat 5.2, all mail user agents do fcntl locking *only*. If you wish to
run elm with,
for example, NFS mounted partions with dot locking, you will have to revert the
change and
recompile the package.
Comment 2 Bill Pemberton 2000-08-16 14:17:37 UTC 
The idea that everything does fcntl only is fine, but wrong.  Run procmail -v,
for example, and you'll see that it does both .lock and fcntl.

My concern isn't that things work 'out of the box', my concern is that some one
installs some other package that ONLY does .lock and ends up with a conflict
with elm.
Comment 3 Jeff Johnson 2000-08-16 14:22:33 UTC 
Um, I don't disagree, I only provide information :-)

The other package, not elm, should be fixed to do *only* fcnt;l locking.