On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 7:03 AM, Ray Rashif <schiv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 8 September 2011 19:35, Alessio 'Blaster' Biancalana > <dottorblaster@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I like the idea, this seems KISS as it is now. >> It could be a better way to manage services, kudos! > > It could also be incorporated into the rc.d functions, making it > elegant to use from within the scripts. > > The question is, can a few lines of shell code (as has been > demonstrated by the bugfix in the bug report above), manage the > problem sufficiently? If yes, then a full, separate program to handle > this stuff is _not_ KISS. i'd agree here ... feels like a excessive solution for a low-incidence problem. in the past it was very rare for initscripts or anything related to cause issue (for me anyway). ultimately it's a larger problem -- there is no such thing as "handling pid files correctly" -- the method itself is flawed. AFAIK systemd is the only one capable of truly handling desired behavior correctly, thru use of cgroups. FTW i have systemd active on ~5 desktops and ~8 servers -- XBMC media center machine, primary in-home hypervisor, all the instances under the hypervisor, netbooks/laptops/etc -- with much success. i can bang out a new unit file in about 2 minutes and <10 LOC with 100x the power and flexibility of start-stop-daemon ... no one should be writing daemon-scripts anymore :-) it's 2011 baby! i didn't start with the intention to advocate sysd instead, but i think start-stop-daemon is an antiquated solution to a problem that has much better approaches today -- i don't see much gain in trying to switch all the daemons *everywhere* to use it, aside from purely pedantic reasons. -- C Anthony
