On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 14:30 -0800, Blake Mitchell wrote: > Geo, I think you are confusing your forks. You are thinking fork as in > run in the background by forking and then killing the parent. Where as > Aaron is talking about forking child processes to handle each connection.
If that's the case, then fine. > Geo Carncross wrote: > > On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 09:19 +0100, Paul J Stevens wrote: > >> Aaron Stone wrote: > >>> If we don't want to break existing scripts/installations: > >>> > >>> default: fork, detach. > >>> -n: no-fork, no-detach. > >>> (new) -d, fork, no-detach. > >>> Weirdness: -nd means what? same as -n? > >>> > >>> However I would rather break things sooner than later: > >> agreed. > >> > >>> default: fork, no-detach > >>> -n: no-fork, no-detach > >>> (new) -d: fork, detach > >>> -nd: no-fork, detach (unsupported, but could be) > >>> > >>> I think this would give us the best set of options that make sense. > >> Ok by me. > > > > I'd recommend: > > > > default: no-fork, no-detach > > -d: detach > > -f: fork > > > > -d would simply be a synonym for >&- <&- 2>&- (etc) > > -f would simply be a synonym for & > > > > possible other options: > > -g would set up a new process group > > -e would set up a new session > > > > That way, people using init.d might try: > > > > dbmail -defg > > > > people using /etc/rc would use: > > > > dbmail -df > > > > and people using /etc/inittab or daemontools would use: > > > > dbmail > > > > > > ALTHOUGH, really- I think "dbmail" should be called "dbmail-start" and > > live in libexec someplace and /usr/sbin/dbmail should instead be a > > wrapper script that looks like this: > > > > #!/bin/sh > > exec /usr/libexec/dbmail/dbmail-start -defg > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Dbmail-dev mailing list > Dbmail-dev@dbmail.org > http://twister.fastxs.net/mailman/listinfo/dbmail-dev -- Internet Connection High Quality Web Hosting http://www.internetconnection.net/
