From owner-freebsd-ports Mon Apr 2 2:25:48 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from titanic.medinet.si (titanic.medinet.si [212.18.32.66]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BF9637B71B for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 02:25:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from blaz@amis.net) Received: by titanic.medinet.si (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8912926C02; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 11:25:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by titanic.medinet.si (Postfix) with ESMTP id 769C711716; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 11:25:41 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 11:25:41 +0200 (CEST) From: Blaz Zupan To: Peter Pentchev Cc: Ilya Martynov , Justin Stanford , Subject: Re: PR's foating in limbo for no apparent reason In-Reply-To: <20010402122126.E462@ringworld.oblivion.bg> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > I wonder if this could be related to difference in the way jed and vi > modify files; ISTR some discussion and somebody stating that jed created > a new file and then rename(2)'d it to the old one, while vi modified > the old file directly, or vice versa. Maybe there are programs that > open a file, then fstat() it periodically to see if something has changed; > this will fail if the rename method is used - the old file shall seem > unchanged, albeit disappeared. Yes, in fact I'm almost certain this is the reason why "vipw" sometimes has problems with jed. But it does not explain why PR's would be misfiled because of this - they would either be empty so send-pr would not send them. Blaz Zupan, Medinet d.o.o, Linhartova 21, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia E-mail: blaz@amis.net, Tel: +386-2-320-6320, Fax: +386-2-320-6325 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message