On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 02:25:36PM -0700, Jos Backus wrote:
> --show-layout
Hm, configure exits 0 before it's done generating files when show_layout=1.
Any idea why this is? I commented out the ``exit 0'' and things seem to work
just fin
make: *** [all] Error 2
What am I doing wrong?
--
Jos Backus _/ _/_/_/Santa Clara, CA
_/ _/ _/
_/ _/_/_/
_/ _/ _/_/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _/_/ _/_/_/use Std::Disclaimer;
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 07:27:46PM -0700, Manoj Kasichainula wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 12:49:46PM -0701, Jos Backus wrote:
> > It would be great to have a BSD-licensed version of
> > something like djb's daemontools.
>
> I've (mostly) written replacement
to be made available with a friendly license, would people such as
the Apache developers promote them and use them? UNIX needs a standard
cross-platform process monitoring solution so individual daemons can stop
reinventing the wheel, and the standard control interface will mak
/killall/etc. It would be great to have a BSD-licensed version of
something like djb's daemontools.
--
Jos Backus _/ _/_/_/Santa Clara, CA
_/ _/ _/
_/ _/_/_/
_/ _/ _/_/
[
unless no_detach.
>
> should that be
> exit(1) if no_detach
> ? or do I have the logic backward?
We should exit if setsid() fails and we don't want to detach (i.e.
no_detach). If we don't exit at that point we will end up killing processes in
the
ts when I poke here." ...).
> -aaron
--
Jos Backus _/ _/_/_/Santa Clara, CA
_/ _/ _/
_/ _/_/_/
_/ _/ _/_/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _/_/ _/_/_/use Std::Disclaimer;
ch is
part of the point of this patch. Am I missing something?
--
Jos Backus _/ _/_/_/Santa Clara, CA
_/ _/ _/
_/ _/_/_/
_/ _/ _/_/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _/_/ _/_/_/use Std::Disclaimer;
On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 01:29:23PM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 12:25:39PM -0701, Jos Backus wrote:
> > Anyone interested in picking this up before the next (last?) 1.3 release?
> >
> > http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7628
>
Anyone interested in picking this up before the next (last?) 1.3 release?
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7628
Please? Thanks!
--
Jos Backus _/ _/_/_/Santa Clara, CA
gt;
> http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7628
It would be even better if the patch were integrated so we wouldn't have to do
the version chase every time :-) Now when the next version comes out and the
patch doesn't apply I'll ha
On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 09:24:47AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> At 2:37 PM +0200 4/19/02, Graham Leggett wrote:
> >
> >Is it possible to create a 1.3.26 release which includes all the proxy
> >fixes to date?
> >
>
> I'm +1 for a 1.3.26...
Perhaps somebody
ach().
Please, please don't change the semantics because it will make it again
impossible to run Apache under a process controller.
While I'm here, would anybody please have a look at bug 7628? Thanks.
--
Jos Backus _
o longer applies cleanly to 1.3.24. Can you please
update the patch with the one attached to this message?
Thanks!
--
Jos Backus _/ _/_/_/Santa Clara, CA
_/ _/ _/
_/ _/_/_/
_/ _/
On Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 07:49:34PM -0800, Jos Backus wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 07:21:16AM -0800, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 05:26:44PM -0500, Michael Handler wrote:
> > > hi, guys. i've posted this patch for foreground/supervise support
On Fri, Mar 01, 2002 at 01:03:33AM -0500, Michael Handler wrote:
> | I am of the mind that it should not be added, but I won't stop anyone
> | if they garner 3 +1s from actual testing and feedback.
Does my +1 count?
--
Jos Backus _/ _/_/_/Sant
gt; exactly how I would have done it.
Fwiw, same here. It is very unintrusive, less so even than the patch that went
into 2.0. Please consider including it.
--
Jos Backus _/ _/_/_/
ichael Handler and all the other people involved in
adding this valuable functionality to an already great webserver! I'm looking
forward to the 2.0 release.
--
Jos Backus _/ _/_/_/Sant
Hello Aaron,
On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 03:01:11PM -0800, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> Test it and give it your blessing.
+2
;-)
--
Jos Backus _/ _/_/_/Santa Clara,
t. */
+if (!dont_fork) {
+ if ((x = fork()) > 0)
+ exit(0);
+ else if (x == -1) {
+ perror("fork");
+ fprintf(stderr, "unable to fork new process\n");
+ exit(1); /*
On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 11:56:28PM -0800, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 11:51:10PM -0800, Jos Backus wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 11:27:53PM -0800, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> > > I think we should take the fork() stuff out of apr_proc_detach()
> > &g
it calls the platform-specific getpgrp()/... functions? I'm assuming that the
pgrp leader check simply involves checking if getpgrp() == getpid(). Correct?
--
Jos Backus
d(MPE) && !defined(OS2) && !defined(TPF) && !defined(BEOS)
+/* Don't detach for MPE because child processes can't survive the death of
+ the parent. */
+if ((x = fork()) > 0)
+exit(0);
+else if (x == -1) {
+perror("fork"
On Sun, Jan 06, 2002 at 10:28:12PM -0800, Jos Backus wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 06, 2002 at 09:11:11PM -0800, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > I'm 100% in favor of this stuff, but please just keep using NO_DETACH for
> > this. I didn't get the use case correct for NO_DETACH, but that d
mean that the NO_DETACH behavior will change (for the
better, in my view).
--
Jos Backus _/ _/_/_/Santa Clara, CA
_/ _/ _/
_/ _/_/_/
_/ _/ _/_/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _/_/ _
On Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 11:52:26PM -0800, Jos Backus wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 09:26:46PM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > Yeah, this seems to be a bug in autoconf because this is not
> > portable /bin/sh code. IIRC, all cases must have an action item.
I misread th
tern[ | pattern] ... ) compound-list;;] ...
[[(] pattern[ | pattern] ... ) compound-list]
esac
The ";;" is optional for the last compound-list.
I'll notify the FreeBSD crowd.
Thanks Justin.
--
Jos Backu
defined(BEOS)
/* Don't detach for MPE because child processes can't survive the death of
the parent. */
-if ((x = fork()) > 0)
-exit(0);
-else if (x == -1) {
-perror("fork");
- fprintf(stderr, "unable to fork new process\n&
xit(0);
-else if (x == -1) {
-perror("fork");
-fprintf(stderr, "unable to fork new process\n");
-exit(1); /* we can't do anything here, so just exit. */
+if (!dont_fork) {
+ if ((x = fork()) > 0)
+ exit(0);
+ else if
On Fri, Dec 28, 2001 at 11:38:01PM -0800, Jos Backus wrote:
[massive snippage]
> So I am really hoping that the Samba people will adopt my patch :-)
Update: Jeremy Allison has committed a variation of my patch to the Samba
tree. See
http://cvs.samba.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/samba/source/s
I think the problem is).
What about the -d and -i flags of ktrace? I use those all the time and I am
running -current.
--
Jos Backus _/ _/_/_/San
On Fri, Dec 28, 2001 at 05:46:58PM -0800, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 28, 2001 at 01:16:56PM -0801, Jos Backus wrote:
> > OK, I overreacted, sorry. But the macro names should match.
>
> Justin committed a fix for this, let us know if it doesn't work for you.
Thank y
> > this work? That could explain why the Samba daemons seem to run properly
> > under the process monitor with my patch.
>
> Yes.
The svscan.c and supervise.c sources only contain a couple of fork() calls, so
that must be suf
On Fri, Dec 28, 2001 at 05:35:13PM -0800, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 28, 2001 at 05:03:06PM -0800, Jos Backus wrote:
> > Interestingly in the Samba code the setsid() call comes _after_ the fork()
> > (see my previous e-mail) and that seems to work just fine. So it looks lik
ous e-mail) and that seems to work just fine. So it looks like
the order suggested is not an absolute requirement; any thoughts on this?
--
Jos Backus _/ _/_/_/
at it does what we want. (Not sure if
> _POSIX_JOB_CONTROL is supposed to be defined for setsid() the way it is for
> setpgid() though.)
I thought it was simply a matter of changing the macro name or adding an extra
definition. Maybe the patch author can comment?
--
Jos Backus _/ _/_/_/Santa Clara, CA
_/ _/ _/
_/ _/_/_/
_/ _/ _/_/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _/_/ _/_/_/use Std::Disclaimer;
[Cc'd the FreeBSD Apache2 port committer because he may be interested in this
discussion.]
Hi Justin,
On Thu, Dec 27, 2001 at 10:07:31PM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 27, 2001 at 05:44:22PM -0800, Jos Backus wrote:
> > I'm willing to code a patch which a
ignored so I may be
wasting my time. I'll interpret no response as ``no interest, go away''.
Thanks,
--
Jos Backus _/ _/_/_/Santa Clara, CA
_/ _/ _/
_/ _/_/_/
_/ _/
nyone?
Thanks,
--
Jos Backus _/ _/_/_/Santa Clara, CA
_/ _/ _/
_/ _/_/_/
_/ _/ _/_/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _/_/ _/_/_/use Std::Disclaimer;
39 matches
Mail list logo
