From owner-freebsd-current Thu Oct 31 10:36:53 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id KAA26704 for current-outgoing; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 10:36:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA26699; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 10:36:50 -0800 (PST) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id LAA25654; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 11:29:55 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199610311829.LAA25654@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: /var/mail (was: re: Help, permission problems...) To: MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 11:29:55 -0700 (MST) Cc: gpalmer@FreeBSD.org, jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com, terry@lambert.org, j@uriah.heep.sax.de, roberto@keltia.freenix.fr, current@FreeBSD.org, scrappy@ki.net In-Reply-To: from "Mark Crispin" at Oct 30, 96 10:59:22 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > Some people who have > > a mad love for /usr/bin/mail want /var/mail NFS mounted from the mail > > box to the shell box. I tell them to use fetchmail. Problem solved. > > I do not have the option of doing this. > > Suppose The Very Big Corporation of America offered you a megabuck or two for > FreeBSD development -- but only if you made NFS-mounted mail worked, because > TVBCA insists upon it. How hard will you stick to your principles? Very hard. But then I understand NFS locking well enough to implement it (I implemented the fcntl() interfaces for server locking on FreeBSD). I suspect Andrew (the guy who wrote the first publically available rpc.statd and rpc.lockd) does too. I suspect Jordan might as well, even though he didn't complete the integration job to bring my changes into the tree and todo list management in rpc.lockd for descriptor coelescing. It's easy to stick to your principles when you can make them work. > > To be perfectly honest, I don't see the problem here ... make the > > locking method an option, just like elm does. No more problem. > > What about my users who thank me for *NOT* doing this, because they find Elm's > options too confusing? I can't believe elm is still that popular (even though it's *my* personal favorite). I have to say this has got to be a reductio ad absurdum argument -- a straw man. It's possible to test the failure case during config by compiling up a small test program. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.