Re: Fix for back-shell child process deadlocks (ITS#2262)

[bernard@messagecare.com]

On Friday, January 10, 2003, at 10:50  AM, Kurt@OpenLDAP.org wrote:
> I think the issue here is not really a matter of where I, you,
> or others might put their resources, because if it a portable
> generally-useful fix was developed it likely would be committed.
> We, in fact, committed one potential fix in an earlier version
> of 2.1.  It was found to be problematic and was backed out.

If a portable fix (i.e. the magical code that compiles and performs 
correctly on all platforms) isn't possible, is it not preferable to 
include code to work around the known limitations on particular systems?

If this patch were reworked so that autoconfiguration could detect 
systems for which it was applicable, and define the appropriate symbol 
to enable the code would it then be acceptable?

Bernard.