Re: Making daemons compatible with systemd
Tollef Fog Heen writes ("Re: Making daemons compatible with systemd"):
> I'm looking forward to your patches for the proprietary HP and Dell
> daemons that are used for monitoring the health of various hardware
Those daemons can continue to be started and managed the way they are
already, with all the unreliability that daemon(3)+pidfiles implies.
If the vendors of those programs care about this they can provide a
new interface, and if the customers care they can try to make the
> (Sure, they might not be packaged for Debian, but adopting an init
> system that doesn't deal with double-forking would be much, much worse
> than adopting one which is Linux-specific for our Linux ports.)
I'm not suggesting that we should do anything that makes the existing
situation worse. We should not adopt an init system that, with
double-forking daemons and init scripts, fails to work as well as that
approach currently does with sysvinit.
But I don't think it is a good idea to adopt a complicated workaround
(which is essentially what the cgroups approach is), to get proper
daemon supervision, when we can simply fix the root cause.