"let the command fail" -> I meant ignore... :)
Yes, I agree that this solution is the best one.
On 8/11/08, Ludovic Rousseau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Alon Bar-Lev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Thanks!
> > Do whatever you think right, but I don't think that searching for a
> > specific file is correct, just let the command fail.
>
>
> Letting the command fail will also make the caller fail.
>
> For example when you upgrade a Debian system you do not expect the
> upgrade to fail because stopping a non-running openct failed.
>
>
> Maybe a better solution is to NOT return an error code in case
> "$DAEMON shutdown" fails because no status file is found.
> Than patch is simple:
> Index: src/tools/openct-control.c
> ===================================================================
> --- src/tools/openct-control.c (révision 1073)
> +++ src/tools/openct-control.c (copie de travail)
> @@ -148,7 +148,7 @@ static int mgr_shutdown(int argc, char *
> if ((num = ct_status(&status)) < 0) {
> fprintf(stderr,
> "cannot access status file; no readers killed\n");
> - return 1;
> + return 0;
> }
>
> while (num--) {
>
>
> Is that acceptable for everybody?
>
> Bye
>
>
> --
> Dr. Ludovic Rousseau
>
_______________________________________________
opensc-devel mailing list
opensc-devel@lists.opensc-project.org
http://www.opensc-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opensc-devel
