From owner-cvs-sbin Wed Sep 20 13:10:08 1995 Return-Path: owner-cvs-sbin Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id NAA25343 for cvs-sbin-outgoing; Wed, 20 Sep 1995 13:10:08 -0700 Received: from irz301.inf.tu-dresden.de (irz301.inf.tu-dresden.de [141.76.1.11]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id NAA25308 ; Wed, 20 Sep 1995 13:09:45 -0700 Received: from sax.sax.de by irz301.inf.tu-dresden.de (8.6.12/8.6.12-s1) with ESMTP id WAA19166; Wed, 20 Sep 1995 22:09:39 +0200 Received: by sax.sax.de (8.6.11/8.6.12-s1) with UUCP id WAA23363; Wed, 20 Sep 1995 22:09:35 +0200 Received: (from j@localhost) by uriah.heep.sax.de (8.6.12/8.6.9) id UAA10363; Wed, 20 Sep 1995 20:37:34 +0200 From: J Wunsch Message-Id: <199509201837.UAA10363@uriah.heep.sax.de> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sbin/slattach uucplock.c Makefile To: ache@astral.msk.su (=?KOI8-R?Q?=E1=CE=C4=D2=C5=CA_=FE=C5=D2=CE=CF=D7?=) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 20:37:33 +0200 (MET DST) Cc: CVS-commiters@freefall.freebsd.org, ache@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-sbin@freefall.freebsd.org, joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de Reply-To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de (Joerg Wunsch) In-Reply-To: from "=?KOI8-R?Q?=E1=CE=C4=D2=C5=CA_=FE=C5=D2=CE=CF=D7?=" at Sep 19, 95 09:05:34 pm X-Phone: +49-351-2012 669 X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Length: 964 Sender: owner-cvs-sbin@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk As =?KOI8-R?Q?=E1=CE=C4=D2=C5=CA_=FE=C5=D2=CE=CF=D7?= wrote: > > I understand. How you do redialing in your case? I dial manually, so i have to redial manually. :( I have to dial four different phone numbers anyway (and hope one of them might be not BUSY), and that's not handled gracefully by anything than stock UUCP by now. (My dialing wrapper has been the major driving force to let slattach create proper PID files, btw. This allowed me for an "un-dialer". :) If i would like to have fully-automated dialing, i would have used iijppp long since. :-) > >Well, as long as slattach doesn't give up when the lockfile already > >exists, i wouldn't mind. > > It does, that is lockfiles purpose :-( > It seems that I need to make lockfiles by an option, not as default case... An option is fine with me. Thanks! -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)