registry lock

[Daniel J. Luke]

On Jan 4, 2016, at 5:13 PM, René J.V. Bertin <rjvbertin at gmail.com> wrote:
> You're aware that the full path to the lockfile is already printed, almost as if to allow people who know what they're doing to copy/paste it into a different terminal window and remove it.

you're assuming a lot there.

> An option to ignore the lock has the benefit of documentation, and can be coupled to a confirmation request.

we don't do interactive interrogation generally for port actions (I don't think the GSOC that added it for interactive sessions landed in a release, but I could be wrong).

Usability research says that that sort of thing ("You're about to shoot yourself in the foot, do you wish to continue? Yes/No") doesn't actually work to protect users. 

> I suppose it would also be possible to add additional locking code to protect certain operation that should always be exclusive (like install, de/activate).

please do.

-- 
Daniel J. Luke                                                                   
+========================================================+ 
| *---------------- dluke at geeklair.net ----------------* |                          
| *-------------- http://www.geeklair.net -------------* |                          
+========================================================+ 
|   Opinions expressed are mine and do not necessarily   |                          
|          reflect the opinions of my employer.          |                          
+========================================================+