Did you ever get this worked out ?
On Mon, 4 Sep 2000, Federico Grau wrote:
> Hello people,
>
> Thanks again for your help with the pine-like "expunge" a couple weeks back.
> I now have some questions regarding flock and fcntl.
>
> My current arrangement is; Box B has an nfs share with users home
> directories. Box A receives email with sendmail. Box A has the nfs share
> from B mounted. As mail arrives, Box A processe a user procmail script (which
> actually resides on B but the process runs on A) seperating out email for the
> user into various folders. Box A and B are redhat 6.0 running 2.2.14 and
> 2.2.16 respectively. I am using mutt 1.2i, compiled from source by me all the
> default options.
>
> Later when I (the user) would run mutt from Box A, I would get mutt errors
> that a mailbox "folder" (actually a file) could not be locked and that it was
> read only. In my kernel messages on Box A I would get the following message
> several times:
> Box_A kernel: lockd: failed to monitor 192.168.1.5
>
> I finally got some time to play with this today, and recompiled mutt with
> "--enable-flock --disable-fcntl"... now I can delete email in folders!!! ...
> however I still get the kernel messages in my logs.
>
> So, I am asking...
> - why would one choose flock or fcntl?
> - could there be some negative repercussions from my current selection?
> - any other insights on how to correct/stop these nfs locking errors?
>
> thanks,
> donfede
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maxwell Spangler "Don't take the penguin too seriously.
Program Writer It's supposed to be kind of goofy and fun,
Greenbelt, Maryland, U.S.A. that's the whole point" - l.t.
