Christian Schwarz wrote: > > In the last policy weekly (#4), I asked for comments if we should > make it policy that every package has to use liblockdev to lock > devices. Noone objected so far. > > So, is liblockdev ready for a wide use or are there any (hidden) > problems?
The library has matured and current version 0.6 can be considered stable (the only change I have in the future 0.7 is a URL in docs :-). I have also created an extension perl library; using it also perl programs can share the advantage of having all locks to devices done through a shared lib. I have tested the library with dip, which uses it in hamm from the beginning (I tested it for two months on bo too). No problems arose. Hidden problems could be in the API, as none has yet tryed to use it in _real_ application (except dip), so I would wait for more conversions to release 1.0 The library handle perfectly the case of a mixed environment (programs that use old FSSTND-lock and programs that use liblockdev), so there is no need to have this mandated for hamm release. Anyway it would be good if other programs start to use it as soon as possible. The library doesn't (yet) handle the case of mouse shared between X11 and gpm, but yesterday I succeded in convincing gpm's author to subscribe to liblockdev mailing list (if interested, you can subscribe to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>). On my site (ftp://ftp.icenet.fi/private/fpolacco/liblockdev) there are also RPMs of the library. I have not yet uploaded the perl extension on CPAN. Fabrizio -- | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Pluto Leader - Debian Developer & Happy Debian 1.3.1 User - vi-holic | 6F7267F5 fingerprint 57 16 C4 ED C9 86 40 7B 1A 69 A1 66 EC FB D2 5E
