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 ________ j...@toerring.de \_______________________________ http://toerring.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org