On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Harald Becker <ra...@gmx.de> wrote: > Denys ! > >> My argument is that before adding code, it makes sense to ponder >> >> whether we really have a real problem here. > > Do you really insist on this endless respawning NOT BEING A BUG???
I'm saying it is not clear-cut. >> If one respawn per second a big problem? I'm not sure. > > > Problem means it may make diagnosing other problems a hell. Why is it hell? "strace -p1" works. > It is the reason > I neglect to use unpatched Busybox init for most of my applications and I > know several people here in Germany thinking the same that this is really > bad. I really wonder why this has not bean fixed earlier (anyhow not > insisting on my patch). I even asked for this around 1995 to 1997 (as far as > I remember), but it has been neglected due to the KISS principle and things > shall be small for embedded devices ... but today we got more and more > desktop related patches blowing up things more than that simple approach. > And still you insist on this endless uncontrolled respawning? If you really > like this endless respawning, why don't you use runit? You are right, I do not use init. Respawn on error is not the only, or the biggest problem it has. http://busybox.net/~vda/init_vs_runsv.html _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox