Hi,
Josselin Mouette:
> Said otherwise, it is not possible to write a reliable service manager
> without integrating it to what happens in process #1.
>
s/is/was/. Today, you have prctl(PR_SET_CHILD_SUBREAPER) to declare
yourself as a pseudo-init to the processes you fork off -- that patch is
fr
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
> You know, or at least should know, as well as I that one can
> centralize the code to do all of those things, and abstract them out
> of
> daemons into a service manager, without
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
You know, or at least should know, as well as I that one can
centralize the code to do all of those things, and abstract them out of
daemons into a service manager, without that service manager being
process #1.
I don’t know wh
The Wanderer:
This is the problem. The init system should not be providing
> "features" which other software might, post-boot and pre-shutdown,
> want to make use of. (AFAIK sysvinit never did, and most - possibly
> all? - of the other init-system candidates don't either.) Such
> features shou
4 matches
Mail list logo
