On 22/07/2009 17:05, Sebastien Roy wrote: > > On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 11:37 -0400, James Carlson wrote: >> Darren Kenny wrote: >>> On 22/07/2009 15:13, Sebastien Roy wrote: >>>> In any case, I provided a similar comment regarding the location of >>>> nwamd. I personally don't want to see any more strange hierarchies >>>> under usr/src/cmd, so I'd suggest that each be placed directly under >>>> usr/src/cmd. If we want to share a daemonize function, then it should >>>> go in a library, since there aren't the only two daemons that could use >>>> it. There are gobs of daemonize() and daemon() functions strewn about >>>> usr/src/cmd that all do mostly the same thing. >>>> >>> >>> Which is where the is a libdaemon.so that comes from the opensource >>> community >>> and is used in apps/programs that need such functionality there. >>> >>> This is already delivered into Nevada through the desktop gate. >>> >>> Darren. >>> >>> [1] - http://0pointer.de/lennart/projects/libdaemon/ >> >> Ick. I filed a CR a long time ago on putting that into libc -- 4471189. >> >> We shouldn't be reaching off into left field for such a basic function. > > Agreed. Linux and the BSDs all appear to have a daemon() function in > their respective libc's. At least for portability's sake, we should do > the same thing. > > -Seb > Oh, that would be my preference too, I just making the point that even Linux has something like this, for a while now, you would think with all processes we follow here we would have spotted this a long time ago.
And for the record, libc would make a lot more sense to me too. Darren.
