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

[Kurt@OpenLDAP.org]

At 05:32 AM 1/10/2003, bernard@messagecare.com wrote:

>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?

I think the answer to the question is, in short, "it depends".
Of interest to me, besides "working" for the "platform", would
be the particulars of the detection and whether the conditional
code would be used by enough folks to be community maintained.
Others may have other interests.

Basically, the only way to determine if a patch is acceptable or
not is to submit it.

Kurt