|
Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com |
Subject: Re: CDB tables ?
From: Matthias Andree (ma
dt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de)Date: Mon Sep 11 2000 - 07:45:47 CDT
- Next message: Matthias Andree: "Bug in util/dict.c:dict_changed()? (was: CDB tables ?)"
- Previous message: Brad Knowles: "Re: My scripts..."
- Next in thread: Matthias Andree: "Re: CDB tables ?"
- Maybe reply: Matthias Andree: "Re: CDB tables ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Ralf Hildebrandt <news-list.postfix.usersinnominate.de> writes:
> On 11 Sep 2000 14:12:40 +0200, Matthias Andree
> <madt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de> wrote:
>
> >Postfix could just lstat(2) instead, falling back to stat(2) on systems
> >without lstat.
>
> Wietse prefers Postfix to work on all supported systems without
> restrictions ...
lstat(2) is in the Single UNIX® Specification, Version 2, and possibly,
thinking about that, stat(2) is more useful anyhow since you want the
mtime of the data, not that of the link.
So this does not inhibit proper portability.
-- Matthias Andree
- Next message: Matthias Andree: "Bug in util/dict.c:dict_changed()? (was: CDB tables ?)"
- Previous message: Brad Knowles: "Re: My scripts..."
- Next in thread: Matthias Andree: "Re: CDB tables ?"
- Maybe reply: Matthias Andree: "Re: CDB tables ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]