On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:19:37 +0100, Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 22:00:42 +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [Marc Haber]
>>> I do not plan to do so for obvious reasons.
>>
>> It is not obvious for me. Can you explain why it should be obvious
>> that you do not plan to patch the daemon to write its own pid file?
>> For me, the obvious solution for a daemon unable to write its own pid
>> file is to patch the daemon.
> I generally try not to patch upstream code if avoidable. Especially if
> a patch would not be acceptable to upstream in the form we would apply
> as a quick fix (no command line option, hard-coded path to the pid
> file).
I find that making the application better or more functional or
reliable, or otherwise improve quality for users is a more compelling
argument than not patching upstream code, or kowtowing to upstream. So
no, this was not at all obvious to me -- indeed, in my opinion, this is
the wrong approach to take.
manoj
--
Guard against physical unruliness. Be restrained in body. Abandoning
physical wrong doing, lead a life of physical well doing. 231
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
