Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2016 08:26:10 -0600 From: Mark Felder <feld@FreeBSD.org> To: Matthew Seaman <matthew@freebsd.org>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Porting Catfish and Autokey to FreeBSD Message-ID: <1452176770.2461098.485503778.2BE41C35@webmail.messagingengine.com> In-Reply-To: <568E3B8C.8010107@freebsd.org> References: <567D18B6.4010702@peercorpstrust.org> <448u4epe3z.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> <1451929436.1527959.482548682.05032107@webmail.messagingengine.com> <20160104233032.213abbc07e7055f3cf8d53ca@gmail.com> <568E06A5.2060303@peercorpstrust.org> <568E3B8C.8010107@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016, at 04:18, Matthew Seaman wrote: > On 01/07/16 06:33, PeerCorps Trust Fund wrote: > > It seems as though FreeBSD has an inotify compatibility layer. > > > > At least that's what we've been informed. One committer in the > > community is currently working on getting it operational and into the > > ports collection. > > It's already been ported. See devel/libinotify > > I say 'ported' but this is a wrapper providing the inotify API built on > top of kqueue(2), because FreeBSD doesn't provide the same notification > kernel functions as Linux does. > > This implementation passes the inotify test suite and as far as I can > tell, behaves almost identically, except for the semantics around > process fork(2)'ing. Under Linux, you can set up inotify and have those > settings preserved in a child process after forking. kqueue(2) doesn't > let you do that. > Upstream has rejected a pull request to add FreeBSD support to pyinotify via libinotify due to their inability to guarantee it will work right https://github.com/seb-m/pyinotify/pull/64 -- Mark Felder ports-secteam member feld@FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1452176770.2461098.485503778.2BE41C35>