Nicolas Williams wrote:
>
>
>
>> I'm disinclined to support an interface that is substandard *and* which
>> does not share widespread adoption in the FOSS community.
>>
>
> In general daemon() is not powerful enough. Often one wants the process
> that calls it to not exit until the progeny forked by daemon() has
> completed additional initialization, or perhaps one should not call
> daemon() until sundry initialization is complete.
>
> But daemon() is quite common. Its absence is usually well-tolerated
> (#ifndef HAVE_DAEMON ...). But still, we should provide it.
>
>
>> If I've misunderstood about the availability of daemon() in Linux,
>> please feel free to correct me. Otherwise I'd be punching the derail
>> button on this case.
>>
>
> It's there in libc in RHEL5.
>
If its there in RHEL5, then I'll withdraw my major concerns. I think
the documentation should point users to other, more robust ways of
dealing with daemon startup.
Last question: Is "Committed" the way to deal with this? If we want to
steer developers elsewhere, should we instead just list this interface
with "Committed Obsolete" or perhaps "Uncommitted".
-- Garrett
