Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] qt-x11 casts finally

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Casey Harkins <charkins AT upl.cs.wisc.edu>
  • To: Dufflebunk <dufflebunk AT dufflebunk.homeip.net>
  • Cc: "Sergey A. Lipnevich" <sergeyli AT pisem.net>, nealbirch <nealbirch AT attbi.com>, <sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] qt-x11 casts finally
  • Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 16:01:47 -0600 (CST)

I was thinking into the future, but even so I think it might be too messy
if we are going to continue to allow more than one cast instance at a
time.

Maybe creating some sort of crazy chroot environment with all sorts of
hard links would work? That sounds like even more fun! :-)

-casey


On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, Dufflebunk wrote:

> *shudders* Yeah, that would do it. But such things will have to wait until
> after 1.0 (or until the rewrite). Currently, there is some signal
> catching, but only around a couple of very important sections that would
> really break things if it were interrupted ;)
>
> On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, Casey Harkins wrote:
>
> >
> > On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, Sergey A. Lipnevich wrote:
> >
> > > It's just too uncertain in terms of transactional safety. What I mean
> > > is, how to make sure that the spell ot file gets "unhidden" at the end
> > > of the cycle? We can make relevant files `chmod 000' temporarily, but
> > > how to guarantee that they are marked as accesible back again?
> >
> > How about this approach:
> >
> > 1) archive the files with tar/bzip2
> > 2) drop the archive in an "unhide" directory somewhere in /var
> > 3) set a link in /etc/rcS.d to run an unhide script that extracts all
> > archives in the "unhide" directory
> > 4) get bash to catch SIGINT
> > 5) remove the files
> > 6) cast the spell
> > 7) run the unhide script
> > 8) remove the archive from /var, if its the last one, also remove the
> > /etc/rcS.d link
> >
> > If a SIGINT occurs, skip to step 7.
> >
> > There may be some locking issues here, but this would probably prevent
> > things from not getting "unhidden". I do see another problem though,
> > performing more than one cast at a time may cause problems if the hidden
> > spell is needed by another instance of cast.
> >
> > Ok, maybe this would get too messy!
> >
> > -casey
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > SM-Discuss mailing list
> > SM-Discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-discuss
> >
>
> --
>
>
> Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
> -----------------
> PGP public key at
> http://wwwkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x3327A9A5
> F1
>
>





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page