Am Montag, 22. Oktober 2012, 23:54:51 schrub johannes hanika: > On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 12:29 AM, Tobias Ellinghaus <h...@gmx.de> wrote: > > Am Freitag, 19. Oktober 2012, 12:10:31 schrub Christian Tellefsen: > >> On 19/10/12 12:05, Pascal de Bruijn wrote: > >> > On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Jens Fendler <jensfend...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > >> >> What do you guys think of a per-library lock mechanism that only > >> >> allows one dt invocation per library? (I.e. you can only have > >> >> different dt windows running if you specify a unique --library for > >> >> each of them)? > >> > > >> > I doubt anybody would be against this. At least I think it's a good > >> > idea. > >> > > >> > A while back we took a look at libunique, which has been deprecated as > >> > it's implicit in GTK3. > >> > > >> > So when we move to GTK3 we'll get this for free (well not per > >> > database)... But there aren't any plans to move yet... > >> > >> Sqlite already detects that another process has locked the library. > >> It prints a bunch of warnings to console, but dt continues to work. > >> > >> I see two approaches: > >> a) exit darktable with an error complaining there's already an instance > >> running > > > > FIXED > > not that dt ever crashes, but what happens if you kill -11 $(pidof dt) > and the lock is still on? :)
Works for me. Same for -9. > -jo Tobias [...]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_sfd2d_oct
_______________________________________________ darktable-devel mailing list darktable-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/darktable-devel
