On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Kevin Grittner
wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>
>> AFAIR Peter is the only one who has complained about the script
>> being longer, and I'm really not sure why that's a big deal.
>
> I'll take that under advisement for later. I'm not inclined to
> think there's anyt
Robert Haas wrote:
> AFAIR Peter is the only one who has complained about the script
> being longer, and I'm really not sure why that's a big deal.
I'll take that under advisement for later. I'm not inclined to
think there's anything here worth trying to squeeze into 9.0, and
I'm assuming tha
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Kevin Grittner
wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> "Kevin Grittner" writes:
>>> > Exactly. With Fedora respecting the standard in this regard,
>>> > I'm convinced we should, too. In reviewing things based on
>>> > Peter's question, I did start t
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> "Kevin Grittner" writes:
>> > Exactly. With Fedora respecting the standard in this regard,
>> > I'm convinced we should, too. In reviewing things based on
>> > Peter's question, I did start to have doubts about *not*
>> > special-casing "status" -- it h
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Kevin Grittner" writes:
> > Exactly. With Fedora respecting the standard in this regard, I'm
> > convinced we should, too. In reviewing things based on Peter's
> > question, I did start to have doubts about *not* special-casing
> > "status" -- it has its own set of values and
"Kevin Grittner" writes:
> Exactly. With Fedora respecting the standard in this regard, I'm
> convinced we should, too. In reviewing things based on Peter's
> question, I did start to have doubts about *not* special-casing
> "status" -- it has its own set of values and 5 is not assigned, so
> us
Tom Lane wrote:
> I think though that the answer to Peter's question is that "stop"
> has to be special cased to some extent, because it is not supposed
> to be an error to stop a service that's not running. If it's not
> even installed, then a fortiori it's not running, so the exit code
> *mus
"Kevin Grittner" writes:
> I can't see a clear case either way. I know I *have* seen scripts
> which took the trouble to special-case it, but I just poked around
> and found that it seems much less common than unconditionally using
> "exit 5". Does anyone know of an environment where it matters?
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On tor, 2009-08-20 at 10:31 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> (2) It doesn't exit with zero for a missing executable unless
>> the request is "stop". It uses 5, which means "program is not
>> installed".
>
> Using 5 is correct, but special-casing "stop" is kind of useles
On tor, 2009-08-20 at 10:31 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> (2) It doesn't exit with zero for a missing executable unless the
> request is "stop". It uses 5, which means "program is not installed".
Using 5 is correct, but special-casing "stop" is kind of useless. Every
other init script I have e
Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Due to a thread about the neglect of the sample start scripts I took a
> look at the current Linux file. There's certainly room for several
> improvements, but some of them might require discussion. Attached are
> a couple small changes which seem to me to be pretty tame.
11 matches
Mail list logo
