Steve Langasek writes ("Re: Minimal init [was: A few observations about
systemd]"):
> FWIW, I've gotten feedback from Samba upstream that the upstart job for smbd
> in Ubuntu, which runs the daemon foregrounded, is concerning to them because
> foreground mode hasn't been tested upstream in about a decade. No bug
> reports yet about actual breakage, but if not for the fact that smbd manages
> to bewilder upstart's daemon tracking code when allowed to daemonize (fix
> coming soon), I would switch the job to invoke smbd in the usual fashion.
If the code is in upstream already then clearly we don't have a
problem getting it into upstream. All that's needed is for it to be
fixed, and upstream will take those fixes.
> There's also the matter that if your daemon is being run in the foreground,
> other services depend on it, and you're not using socket activation, there's
> ambiguity as to when the service is actually "started". A racy startup is a
> bad thing.
I agree. But using a daemon's call to fork() as a proxy for startup
notification is IMO absurd.
Also I have no objection to socket activation (which is after all
what inetd does...).
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/20025.22253.531540.625...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
