Bug 16342

Summary:	elm should also do .lock ing
Product:	[Retired] Red Hat Linux	Reporter:	Bill Pemberton <wfp5p>
Component:	elm	Assignee:	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:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

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.