[Unison-hackers] osxsupport.c

[Benjamin Pierce]

OK, keeping the patch seems reasonable.  I've incorporated it in the  
development sources.  You can either apply it or not (I don't think  
it matters much, so maybe better not, for the sake of consistency) in  
the current Fink version.

Regards,

     - Benjamin


On Sep 22, 2005, at 7:10 AM, Ben Willmore wrote:

> On 9/20/05, Jerome Vouillon <Jerome.Vouillon at pps.jussieu.fr> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 07:11:41AM -0700, Ben Willmore wrote:
>>
>>> As unison maintainer in Fink (mac os x), I inherited the included
>>> patch against 2.10.2.  I wrongly assumed it had been incorporated  
>>> into
>>> newer versions.
>>>
> <snip>
>
>> synchronization is unlikely to fail (this may happen only if the
>> attributes of a read-only files are changed but its contents remain
>> unchanged).  So the patch is not as important as it used to be.
>>
> <snip>
>
>> I'm not sure whether this is an argument to drop it (the
>> synchronization is unlikely to fail) or to apply it (the patch is
>> unlikely to do any harm)...
>>
>
> This sounds like a clear argument in favour of the patch to me: if it
> fixes a real problem (systematic  failure to synchronise
> attribute-changes on read-only files) and is unlikely to do any harm,
> it seems worth having.
>
> Am I right in understanding that the risk is that a read-only file may
> be left owner-writable in the event of a crash?  Can the same occur if
> a crash happens between the setting of the attributes and the setting
> of the permisssions? If so, it seems the negative impact of the patch
> is minimal.
>
> Ben
>
> Ben
> _______________________________________________
> Unison-hackers mailing list
> Unison-hackers at lists.seas.upenn.edu
> http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/unison-hackers
>