end
Adriano Nagelschmidt Rodrigues <anr(_at_)ime(_dot_)usp(_dot_)br> writes:
Philip Guenther writes:
Adriano Nagelschmidt Rodrigues <anr(_at_)ime(_dot_)usp(_dot_)br> writes:
Mail is being delivered over NFS on a machine running SunOS 4.1.3_U1, the
procmail version is:
procmail v3.11pre7
Locking strategies: dotlocking, fcntl(), lockf(), flock()
It's my recall that you SunOS 4.x doesn't let you lock a file with all
of those at the same time.
But doesn't procmail use only one of the locking methods above, let's say the
first (right to left) that works?
Nope, it wants to do all of them.
That implies that you overrode the output of the procmail autoconfiguration
with regards to which locking methods to use. Don't do that.
I did nothing of the sort ;-) Seriously, I compiled procmail on the machine it
is being used and let it choose the locking methods it thought fit.
Hmm, it should have prompted you for a list of directories on which to do
the locking tests. Did you include a directory NFS mounted from the server?
...
Hmm, selecting locking methods might be a good idea. If I suspect that there
are some problems with NFS interaction between SunOS 4.1.3 and Solaris 2.5.1,
which locking methods should I discard? Maybe kernel locking is the best
candidate to leave...
If the autoconf process seemed to select too many methods, and you're
sure you gave it enough different directories to work with when it ran,
then I would probably disable lockf() and flock() locking, leaving
fcntl() locking (and dotlocking, which you can't turn off).
Philip Guenther