Re: [PATCH] Also accept SIGHUP/SIGTERM in systemd-wrapper

2014-09-11 Thread Willy Tarreau
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 04:35:40PM +, Matt Robenolt wrote: > Hmm, so right now this is a bit confusing. The wrapper doesn't pass > along signals to the the actual haproxy process afaict, so I'm not > sure that'd be an issue. If you needed to SIGHUP haproxy itself, you'd > read the pid and whatn

Re: [PATCH] Also accept SIGHUP/SIGTERM in systemd-wrapper

2014-09-11 Thread Matt Robenolt
Hmm, so right now this is a bit confusing. The wrapper doesn't pass along signals to the the actual haproxy process afaict, so I'm not sure that'd be an issue. If you needed to SIGHUP haproxy itself, you'd read the pid and whatnot and handle that. I look at this behavior as exactly what the init.d

Re: [PATCH] Also accept SIGHUP/SIGTERM in systemd-wrapper

2014-09-11 Thread Willy Tarreau
Hi Marc-Antoine, On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 11:10:10AM +0200, Marc-Antoine Perennou wrote: > On 11 September 2014 07:44, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:38:55PM -0700, Matt Robenolt wrote: > >> Awesome, thanks. :) > >> > >> Is it possible to also get this applied into the 1.5 bra

Re: [PATCH] Also accept SIGHUP/SIGTERM in systemd-wrapper

2014-09-11 Thread Marc-Antoine Perennou
On 11 September 2014 07:44, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:38:55PM -0700, Matt Robenolt wrote: >> Awesome, thanks. :) >> >> Is it possible to also get this applied into the 1.5 branch since this is >> low risk and doesn???t break any backwards compatibility and whatnot? > > I'v

Re: [PATCH] Also accept SIGHUP/SIGTERM in systemd-wrapper

2014-09-10 Thread Willy Tarreau
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:38:55PM -0700, Matt Robenolt wrote: > Awesome, thanks. :) > > Is it possible to also get this applied into the 1.5 branch since this is low > risk and doesn???t break any backwards compatibility and whatnot? I've just backported it as well. 1.5 was still missing Conrad

Re: [PATCH] Also accept SIGHUP/SIGTERM in systemd-wrapper

2014-09-10 Thread Matt Robenolt
Awesome, thanks. :) Is it possible to also get this applied into the 1.5 branch since this is low risk and doesn’t break any backwards compatibility and whatnot? -- Matt Robenolt @mattrobenolt On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 5:33 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote: > Hi Matt, > On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 05:19:3

Re: [PATCH] Also accept SIGHUP/SIGTERM in systemd-wrapper

2014-09-10 Thread Willy Tarreau
Hi Matt, On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 05:19:30AM +, Matt Robenolt wrote: > My proposal is to let haproxy-systemd-wrapper also accept normal > SIGHUP/SIGTERM signals to play nicely with other process managers > besides just systemd. In my use case, this will be for using with > runit which has to ab

[PATCH] Also accept SIGHUP/SIGTERM in systemd-wrapper

2014-09-10 Thread Matt Robenolt
My proposal is to let haproxy-systemd-wrapper also accept normal SIGHUP/SIGTERM signals to play nicely with other process managers besides just systemd. In my use case, this will be for using with runit which has to ability to change the signal used for a "reload" or "stop" command. It also might b