Subject: Re: pine 3.96 index building fetish... (and fix)

From: Steve Hubert <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 09:47:14 -0800 (PST)

Jeffrey,
   That should work ok. This comparison is now done in a smarter way that
doesn't depend on system load in Pine4.05. Thanks.

-- 
Steve Hubert <[email-masked]>
Networks and Distributed Computing, Univ. of Washington, Seattle

On Mon, 30 Nov 1998, Jeffrey Hundstad wrote:

> We at Minnesota State Unversity, Mankato, use pine3.96 to access our
> Simeon IMAP server.  We have a campus address book that has been made
> read-only.  This file gets indexed into a lu file once each rebuild.
> 
> In the summer (or as it turns out during low usage days) everything
> works JUST FINE.  ...but most of the time when composing a message
> (during alias expansion) the system THINKS that the lu file on our
> read-only address books is out of date and causes a /tmp/a3nnnnnn lu
> file to be created for each read-only address book for EACH user
> trying to compose a message (OUCH).  Pine also complains that the
> mtime is ~1-12 seconds too new.
> 
> It appears that pine encodes the creation time for the lu file
> internally.  This time is then compared against the mtime of the text
> address book.  If the text file is newer than the lu then the lu is
> rebuilt.  By placing a fuzz factor of a few seconds between the time
> encoded in the lu file and the mtime, the overzealous remaking of lu
> files has stopped.  Does anyone see anything completely insane in
> doing this?
> 
> diff -r pine3.96/pine/adrbklib.c pine3.96a/pine/adrbklib.c
> 357c357
> <               if((timestamp=get_timestamp_from_disk(ab->fp_hash)) >= mtime){
> ---
> >               if((timestamp=get_timestamp_from_disk(ab->fp_hash)) >= (mtime-30)){
> 
> 
> 
>