On Jul 19 21:36, jojelino wrote: > On 2013-07-19 PM 9:08, jojelino wrote: > >On 2013-07-19 PM 9:02, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >>There *is* a workaround: > >> > >> export CYGWIN_SQLITE_LOCKING=posix > >> > >>See http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-announce/2013-06/msg00014.html > >> > >It's very good workaround instead of rebuild sqlite3. thanks for the point. > Also, I commented out F_LCK_MANDATORY in fcntl.h to keep from > confronting the disastrous situation introduced by this experimental > feature. I expect it would save many hours instead of digging into > unmaintained source codes. especially for projects that uses the > sort of autotools which just checks the existence of F_LCK_MANDATORY > macro. and is optimistic about the experimental feature.
This is over the top. F_LCK_MANDATORY is a Cygwin invention not known to the outer world, *and* the behaviour of F_LCK_MANDATORY is documented. If any project actually chooses to use it, it will do so with the full information about the semantics given. Also, since mandatory locking is not standard conformant anyway, the project has to know exactly what it's doing. So what's your point? Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
