[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Allow to work on systems without Fcntl::flock implementation.
From: |
Ralf Wildenhues |
Subject: |
Re: Allow to work on systems without Fcntl::flock implementation. |
Date: |
Wed, 9 Sep 2009 07:28:52 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-09) |
* Eric Blake wrote on Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 03:08:18AM CEST:
> According to Ralf Wildenhues on 9/8/2009 12:44 PM:
> > * Paolo Bonzini wrote on Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 01:50:39PM CEST:
> >> On 09/08/2009 07:05 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >>> The patch is a bit of a hack, as it would be cleaner to put this right
> >>> into XFile.pm. However, that would require us to either fork from the
> >>> Automake copy of the file, or also integrate this there. WDYT?
> >> Why not? (not a rhetoric question).
> >
> > Why not *what*? Why not fork the file? Why not apply this patch as-is?
> > Why not integrate this change in Automake? A wee bit of redundancy can
> > sometimes help get over the noisy channel that is non-native language.
>
> The patch itself looked okay; and since automake is not currently using
> flock, I guess I'm okay with forking for now. Go ahead and apply it.
The patch doesn't constitute a fork from Automake. It merely puts the
test in a file maintained by Autoconf, rather than where it would
rightly belong: in XFile.pm, maintained by Automake.
Pushed now; thanks.
Cheers,
Ralf