Tollef Fog Heen writes ("Re: Making daemons compatible with systemd"):
> I'm looking forward to your patches for the proprietary HP and Dell
> daemons that are used for monitoring the health of various hardware
> components.Those daemons can continue to be started and managed the way they are already, with all the unreliability that daemon(3)+pidfiles implies. If the vendors of those programs care about this they can provide a new interface, and if the customers care they can try to make the vendors care. > (Sure, they might not be packaged for Debian, but adopting an init > system that doesn't deal with double-forking would be much, much worse > than adopting one which is Linux-specific for our Linux ports.) I'm not suggesting that we should do anything that makes the existing situation worse. We should not adopt an init system that, with double-forking daemons and init scripts, fails to work as well as that approach currently does with sysvinit. But I don't think it is a good idea to adopt a complicated workaround (which is essentially what the cgroups approach is), to get proper daemon supervision, when we can simply fix the root cause. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20025.22114.712473.868...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
