On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 12:27:38PM -0400, seth vidal wrote: >On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 18:20 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: >> On Wed, 26.05.10 15:52, Scott James Remnant (scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: >> >> > On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 08:43 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote: >> > >> > > On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 12:35 +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote: >> > > >> > > > We did sit down and discuss things, and you convinced me that >> > > > launchd-style activation was a useful thing to have. Then you went off >> > > > and wrote systemd anyway. >> > > > >> > > >> > > If you want to add socket passing to upstart as well, we can turn this >> > > into a win-win situation instead of flaming each other. >> > > >> > > If both upstart systemd support this in the same way, it will will be >> > > much easier to get the patches for the various services upstream. That >> > > is great. >> > > >> > I don't see any reason not to at least pass the LISTEN_FDS environment >> > variable (though I can't figure out what LISTEN_PID is for?) >> >> Ah nice, now we are talking, yesterday you were still refusing >> cooperation on this, and claimed the systemd scheme was "too simple"... >> >> Regarding the LISTEN_PID env var: >> >> environment variables are normally inherited when forking/execing. We >> want to make sure that only the process we actually start ourselves >> parses and handles LISTEN_FDS. We want to avoid that if this daemon >> might spawn some other process, it might get confused into handling >> LISTEN_FDS, although that env var wasn't actually intended for it. >> >> And hence we say that LISTEN_PID should be verified first, and only if >> it matches LISTEN_FDS should be handled. >> >> This is actually explained in my long blog story. Please read it. It's >> number 8 in the feature list! >> >> > Upstart will support a different mechanism as well though, because for >> > the services we want to activate this way in Ubuntu, there are benefits >> > to having the services "phone back" to Upstart to pick up the socket. >> >> Right, would be good if you could elaborate about that. I alead asked >> you a couple of times about this. Would love to hear about the >> reasoning. > >Scott, Lennart, > A Proposal: maybe the two of you should continue this discussion >off-list, in private. It may help facilitate more open communication >since neither of you will feel you have to respond to things for an >audience and you won't get any extraneous remarks from the peanut >gallery (like myself). >Perhaps there is more common ground than there appeared at first. If so >- feeling it out in private may help all of us. Also, while I certainly don't want to discourage a techincal discussion on the devel list, I would think much of this conversation should have been had on the systemd-devel list instead. At least it wouldn't have gotten lost there. josh -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
