On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 08:13 +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
> Attached is a patch to baselayout-1.12.0_pre6-r3 that allows this.
> Basically when an init script calls start-stop-daemon --start then we
> log what it started (and hopefully a pidfile) in
> ${svcdir}/daemons/${myservice}
in pre7 :)
--
Roy
maillog: 31/08/2005-09:05:51(+0100): Roy Marples types
> On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 08:13 +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
> > Attached is a patch to baselayout-1.12.0_pre6-r3 that allows this.
> > Basically when an init script calls start-stop-daemon --start then we
> > log what it started (and hopefully a pi
On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 08:13 +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
> Attached is a patch to baselayout-1.12.0_pre6-r3 that allows this.
> Basically when an init script calls start-stop-daemon --start then we
> log what it started (and hopefully a pidfile) in
> ${svcdir}/daemons/${myservice}
Forgot to attach a
On Tue, 2005-08-23 at 16:09 +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> What I would really like to see in the init system is a way that
> initscripts can check whether the services they are responsible for are
> still running and then adjust their status accordingly, along with some
> nice output. This woul
On Tuesday 19 July 2005 20:00, Roy Marples wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 12:42 -0400, Eric Brown wrote:
> > The real problem is not that the daemons don't return errors, but
> > that our init scripts do not make reasonable attempts to verify
> > service startup. If a Gentoo init script claims tha
On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 23:53 +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> I know Roy already did the sleep check in rc-services.sh which is small,
> and I think fairly acceptable
0.1 seconds by default. This is adjustable in /etc/conf.d/rc
Roy
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Roy Marples wrote:
>On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 12:42 -0400, Eric Brown wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>The real problem is not that the daemons don't return errors, but that our
>>init
>>scripts do not make reasonable attempts to verify service startup. If a
>>Gentoo
>>init script claims that a service started,
On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 14:40 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 14:08 -0400, Eric Brown wrote:
> > My point is that Snort and Apache are not alone in this, so I suppose
> > quite a few upstream developers just disagree with us on what proper
> > initialization means. Why should
On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 16:43 -0400, Michael Cummings wrote:
> not to detract from the discussion, but...anyone else notice this?
He quoted me. His text was above mine.
People have met me. They know I exist. Though Eric might be a figment
of my shattered subconscious psyche. Who knows? :P
> O
not to detract from the discussion, but...anyone else notice this?
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 14:40:01 -0400
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> They shouldn't, but that doesn't mean implementing some half-baked
> hack to resolve the situation. It might be better to instead patch
> the daemon
On Tuesday 19 July 2005 02:08 pm, Eric Brown wrote:
> I do see how timing could be an issue for sleeps, but I would personally
> much rather have a timeout variable in conf.d somewhere rather than no
> check at all.
because you're only looking at one side of the race condition
your check goes to
Not everyone can patch them, more people would be capable of writing
half-baked hacks that resolve most of the issues.
Anyway I guess the new baselayout sounds promising here.
> My point is that Snort and Apache are not alone in this, so I suppose
> quite a few upstream developers just disagree w
On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 14:08 -0400, Eric Brown wrote:
> My point is that Snort and Apache are not alone in this, so I suppose
> quite a few upstream developers just disagree with us on what proper
> initialization means. Why should our users suffer?
They shouldn't, but that doesn't mean implementi
Eric Brown wrote:
> Services that use Gentoo init scripts often report a status of [started] or
>
> [OK] even though they fail to start. The most recent bug like this that I've
>
>
> found is with snort. If you have a bad rule, snort will initialize, the
>
> rc-scripts will give it an
A few responses:
(Please forgive the lack of normal formatting)
1) To Chris Gianelloni
I really do agree that it's silly for a daemon to lie about it's
initialization status. However, after actually haven taken some of
these issues upstream (in particular Apache 1.3). I realized that the
upstre
On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 12:42 -0400, Eric Brown wrote:
> The real problem is not that the daemons don't return errors, but that our
> init
> scripts do not make reasonable attempts to verify service startup. If a
> Gentoo
> init script claims that a service started, it should make an effort to c
On Tuesday 19 July 2005 12:42 pm, Eric Brown wrote:
> The real problem is not that the daemons don't return errors, but that
> our init scripts do not make reasonable attempts to verify service startup.
i'd disagree ... if a service sucks, it sucks
adding some code to try and guess whether the se
On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 12:42 -0400, Eric Brown wrote:
> Services that use Gentoo init scripts often report a status of [started] or
> [OK] even though they fail to start. The most recent bug like this that I've
> found is with snort. If you have a bad rule, snort will initialize, the
> rc-scripts
Services that use Gentoo init scripts often report a status of [started] or[OK] even though they fail to start. The most recent bug like this that I'vefound is with snort. If you have a bad rule, snort will initialize, therc-scripts will give it an [OK] status, and then it will die once it
19 matches
Mail list logo
