On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 04:31:30PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Miroslaw Baran writes ("Bug#727708: Value of reading other's position statements [was: systemd vs. whatever]"):
> > You wrote:
> > > One non-feature of upstart which I happen to care strongly about is its
> > > use of ptrace(2) to figure out what a job is doing. This destroys any
> > > attempt to just use "strace foo" as the job, if one really needs to
> > > figure out what a piece of software is doing wrong. Thanks but no
> > > thanks.
> > Let me allow to quote the upstart's position statement:
> I have to say that I think that if we were to suggest that packages
> should supply upstart configs, this should be done by having the
> packages use the SIGSTOP protocol, not by having init ptrace them.
> Using ptrace like this is a trick one would use if one didn't have the
> source code.
I agree. It would still require some fiddling to make 'expect stop' work
together with strace anyway, since upstart only cares about SIGSTOP raised
by upstart's child process, not by the grandchild; so if you actually need
upstart to know non-racily when the service is started you would need the
process under trace to SIGSTOP its own parent. Not elegant, but possible.
Or if you don't need to worry about a non-racy startup for the service
you're testing, just omit the 'expect' stanza entirely.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature