On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 04:36:56PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote: >> Either I don't understand the usage scenario you are talking about, or I >> misunderstand what is being proposed in this thread, or you >> misunderstand what is being proposed in this thread. Here is a more >> concrete example of a situation based on what I think is being proposed:
>> The Debian maintainer for a specific VPN decides it does not need >> special shutdown handling, so he marks it to not require calling >> "/etc/init.d/SuperVPN stop" when doing a shutdown or reboot. This is >> what I understand this thread is about. This will result in SuperVPN >> not being stopped until the final "kill all remaining processes" step of >> the halt or reboot (i.e. don't waste time shutting this daemon down >> cleanly, let it die abruptly just before halting). > Well, sending SIGTERM should not cause software to die abruptly, and IIRC > sending SIGTERM to all processes happens before sending SIGKILL. The point is that this new proposal applies only to services whose maintainers decide they do *not* need graceful handling. If you have another process that does need a graceful shutdown, it's only ever been guaranteed if you give that process a shutdown script with the right sequence number, and *all* such shutdown scripts are run *before* the killall5 is sent. If something depends on a particular /other/ service to be shut down gracefully, and this hasn't been coordinated with the package providing the service, then that something is broken by design. Shooting it in the head is a feature. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
