Re: use of "stat -"

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 12/05/2020 15:33, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 12.05.2020 16:19, Wei Liu wrote:
>> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 12:58:46PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> now that I've been able to do a little bit of work from the office
>>> again, I've run into a regression from b72682c602b8 "scripts: Use
>>> stat to check lock claim". On one of my older machines I've noticed
>>> guests wouldn't launch anymore, which I've tracked down to the
>>> system having an old stat on it. Yes, the commit says the needed
>>> behavior has been available since 2009, but please let's not forget
>>> that we continue to support building with tool chains from about
>>> 2007.
>>>
>>> Putting in place and using newer tool chain versions without
>>> touching the base distro is pretty straightforward. Replacing the
>>> coreutils package isn't, and there's not even an override available
>>> by which one could point at an alternative one. Hence I think
>>> bumping the minimum required versions of basic tools should be
>>> done even more carefully than bumping required tool chain versions
>>> (which we've not dared to do in years). After having things
>>> successfully working again with a full revert, I'm now going to
>>> experiment with adapting behavior to stat's capabilities. Would
>>> something like that be acceptable (if it works out)?
>> Are you asking for reverting that patch?
> Well, I assume the patch has its merits, even if I don't really
> understand what they are from its description.

What is in any away unclear about the final paragraph in the commit message?

> I'm instead asking
> whether something like the below (meanwhile tested) would be
> acceptable.

Not really, seeing as removing perl was the whole point.

~Andrew