Felipe Sateler wrote: > - Behave sensibly when invoked with 'start' and already running > - Behave sensibly when invoked with 'stop' and not running
Ah.. yeah, that would be a possible interpretation of the policy. But formalizing something as to "behave sensibly" is not really exact, cause it is up to the reader how he interprets it. I do interpret it like this: - Don't do nasty things with 'start' when already running (like killing the firsts pidfiles, launching a seconds instance, etc.) - Don't do nasty things with 'stop' when not running (like killing other processes or changing something in the environment so it won't start the next time). I understand it so, that the third one is just there to describe it more exactly. Because exiting with zero or non-zero has absolutely nothing to do with "behaving sensibly". Actually returning a non-zero exit code is the right thing to do, cause the action to stop a process _did_ fail, because the process has not been running. Then again it would be "sensible" not to let the upgrade process fail just because of this, but i think thats far from the scope. So in the end I agree that would be sensible to exit with 0, if the process is not running, cause their might be different errors to occur when stopping (even though I never met one), but that it would make sense to describe this more clear in the policy. Regards, Patrick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
