From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <a15e81937bfe45906033726649d61dd5@vitanuova.com>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Ephase question.
From: rog@vitanuova.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 00:49:22 +0100
Topicbox-Message-UUID: dc96b900-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> > would it be too nasty to make the fileserver refuse writes
> > on files that are currenty open with OEXEC?

> sometimes you really do want to update a binary and it's annoying when
> you can't

well, safeinstall would still have its place:

	cp $prereq $stem || mv $prereq _$stem && cp $prereq $stem

...it would just be less exercised.

round here we tend to

	mv /bin/prog /bin/prog.`{date -n}

which leads to less clashes (but does require garbage collection
every so often).

i don't have such a problem doing this with publicly installed
executables; it's when i'm in the usual compile/edit cycle, and
accidentally overwrite a running executable and spend half an hour
looking for the non-existent bug that gets my goat.  it also means
that i have developed a tendency to ignore hard-to-explain problems:
"oh, it must have been overwritten".

  rog.