On Jul 31, 2007, at 9:04 AM, Jeff Johnson wrote:

>
> I believe fcntl locking is fine, but have not investigated. We  
> could flip to fcntl
> locking on HEAD for a month or so to insure there are no surprises.  
> I do
> think NPTL locking, when available, is the better implementation going
> forward because it unifies thread and process locking.
>

I should be more careful:

    NPTL == Berkeley DB locking using posix shared mutexes implemented
     on linux using futexes and NPTL.

Shall we flip to fcntl locking on HEAD for a couple of weeks?

Or perhaps I should say, "Should  I flip to fcntl locking?", OpenPKG  
may already be there.

73 de Jeff