Colin Watson writes ("Re: Bug#727708: upstart proposed policy in Debian"):
> On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 01:36:59PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > How will we cope with removed-but-not-purged services ?
>
> Somebody else can perhaps provide a better answer, but I'd note that
> this situation will generally just result in a log file complaining that
> the executable in question doesn't exist (and of course the service
> never reaching the "running" state, but that was expected), which isn't
> particularly awful.
Right. So is the current practice just to ignore this problem and
tolerate the errors in the logs ?
> > Do we deprecate "expect fork" and "expect daemon" ? (I would favour
> > this - the approach there is pretty horrible.)
>
> [lots of stuff]
Exactly.
> and it requires no particularly exciting code in the init daemon
> since finding out about SIGSTOP already basically comes with the
> territory of being pid 1.
It comes with being the daemon's parent, even - the special powers of
pid 1 aren't even needed.
> I think we'd have to do some work to modify existing Upstart jobs to
> conform to this, but I also think that work would be worthwhile, as
> "expect fork" and "expect daemon" have been a bit flaky and they're a
> bit of an obstacle (perhaps not an insurmountable one) to porting to
> non-Linux kernels.
Yes.
Thanks,
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/21170.19861.846943.830...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
