On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 01:40:43PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Casey Dahlin said:
> > I'd say fire and forget or something close for most sysv initscripts. If
> > you want to do better you need a modern tool like systemd/upstart/etc.
> > Trying to do it better in bash just makes
Once upon a time, Casey Dahlin said:
> I'd say fire and forget or something close for most sysv initscripts. If
> you want to do better you need a modern tool like systemd/upstart/etc.
> Trying to do it better in bash just makes for piles of ugly, and the
> weird failure modes and corner cases wil
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 03:30:05PM +0300, Manuel Wolfshant wrote:
> On 06/15/2010 03:08 PM, Joe Orton wrote:
*snip*
> > Thoughts?
> Well, I'd say it depends on how we define the "start" part. "fire and
> forget", "start and make sure it was started" or "start and make sure
> it is running".
>
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 8:08 AM, Joe Orton wrote:
>
> I'd instinctively prefer (1) from a "do one thing and do it well"
> perspective; (2) starts down the road of a better/more complex form of
> service-monitoring/management and ends up doing it really badly in messy
> sh script in N places.
Abso
On 06/15/2010 03:08 PM, Joe Orton wrote:
> Any opinions on this? I've had a query.
>
> What should "service start" do for a daemon - or more specifically,
> when should it return? There is inconsistency amongst different current
> init scripts, two general approaches:
>
> 1) fire and forget:
