Re: again, ports that stop daemons

2011-12-28 Thread Łukasz Wąsikowski
W dniu 2011-12-09 22:25, Doug Barton pisze: > I previously described what I thought was a pretty good way to handle > this question that addressed the needs expressed by all of the posters > on the previous thread, but my suggestion didn't get any responses. > Since this has come up again, it woul

Re: again, ports that stop daemons

2011-12-11 Thread Matthew Seaman
On 11/12/2011 07:19, Jason Hellenthal wrote: > If end-user is upgrading a package they should be prepared to take > any neccesary action to start the services again after final actions > are complete. Desperate services could have a periodic script that > could handle the checks for these services

Re: again, ports that stop daemons

2011-12-10 Thread Jason Hellenthal
On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 01:25:25PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote: > On 12/09/2011 13:18, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 01:09:09AM +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote: > >> on 02/12/2011 21:55 Baptiste Daroussin said the following: > >>> On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 08:38:05PM +0100, Torfinn I

Re: again, ports that stop daemons

2011-12-09 Thread Baptiste Daroussin
On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 01:25:25PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote: > On 12/09/2011 13:18, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 01:09:09AM +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote: > >> on 02/12/2011 21:55 Baptiste Daroussin said the following: > >>> On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 08:38:05PM +0100, Torfinn Ing

Re: again, ports that stop daemons

2011-12-09 Thread Doug Barton
On 12/09/2011 13:18, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 01:09:09AM +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote: >> on 02/12/2011 21:55 Baptiste Daroussin said the following: >>> On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 08:38:05PM +0100, Torfinn Ingolfsen wrote: On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Andriy Gapon wrot

Re: again, ports that stop daemons

2011-12-09 Thread Baptiste Daroussin
On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 01:09:09AM +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote: > on 02/12/2011 21:55 Baptiste Daroussin said the following: > > On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 08:38:05PM +0100, Torfinn Ingolfsen wrote: > >> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote: > >>> > >>> Or that they simply quit doing that

Re: again, ports that stop daemons

2011-12-03 Thread Andriy Gapon
on 03/12/2011 10:55 Matthew Seaman said the following: > On 03/12/2011 08:38, Chris Rees wrote: >> A little service magic would do; >> >> [ service blargh status 2>/dev/null ] && echo "DON'T FORGET TO STOP >> THIS SERVICE!!!" >> >> I'll prepare a patch, as long as there's some chance of it going in

Re: again, ports that stop daemons

2011-12-03 Thread Matthew Seaman
On 03/12/2011 08:38, Chris Rees wrote: > A little service magic would do; > > [ service blargh status 2>/dev/null ] && echo "DON'T FORGET TO STOP > THIS SERVICE!!!" > > I'll prepare a patch, as long as there's some chance of it going in ;) Of course, there's always the problem that the service m

Re: again, ports that stop daemons

2011-12-03 Thread Chris Rees
On 3 Dec 2011 08:38, "Chris Rees" wrote: > > On 2 December 2011 23:09, Andriy Gapon wrote: > > on 02/12/2011 21:55 Baptiste Daroussin said the following: > >> On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 08:38:05PM +0100, Torfinn Ingolfsen wrote: > >>> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote: > > >>>

Re: again, ports that stop daemons

2011-12-03 Thread Chris Rees
On 2 December 2011 23:09, Andriy Gapon wrote: > on 02/12/2011 21:55 Baptiste Daroussin said the following: >> On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 08:38:05PM +0100, Torfinn Ingolfsen wrote: >>> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote: Or that they simply quit doing that and instead print

Re: again, ports that stop daemons

2011-12-02 Thread Andriy Gapon
on 02/12/2011 21:55 Baptiste Daroussin said the following: > On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 08:38:05PM +0100, Torfinn Ingolfsen wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote: >>> >>> Or that they simply quit doing that and instead print a message like "Port >>> X is >>> deinstalled but it

Re: again, ports that stop daemons

2011-12-02 Thread Baptiste Daroussin
On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 08:38:05PM +0100, Torfinn Ingolfsen wrote: > On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote: > > > > Or that they simply quit doing that and instead print a message like "Port > > X is > > deinstalled but it may have some processes running, please do Y and/or Z to > >

Re: again, ports that stop daemons

2011-12-02 Thread Torfinn Ingolfsen
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote: > > Or that they simply quit doing that and instead print a message like "Port X > is > deinstalled but it may have some processes running, please do Y and/or Z to > find > them and/or stop them". I prefer this suggestion. -- Regards, Torfinn

again, ports that stop daemons

2011-12-02 Thread Andriy Gapon
Can I again suggest that ports that stop their daemons on deinstall should (MUST) try to (re-)start them upon install? Or that they simply quit doing that and instead print a message like "Port X is deinstalled but it may have some processes running, please do Y and/or Z to find them and/or stop