[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#727708: upstart proposed policy in Debian [and 1 more messages]



On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 03:03:25PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Andreas Barth <aba@ayous.org> writes:
> > * Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) [131219 04:09]:
> >> Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:

> >>> systemd supports the non-forking daemon too.  Only, instead of
> >>> raise(SIGSTOP) the daemon has to fetch an AF_UNIX socket name from an
> >>> environment variable, connect to it, and send a special message with
> >>> socket credentials attached.

> >> I assume this is functionality provided by the libsystemd-daemon
> >> library if you're willing to have a dependency on it?  (Checks.)  Ah,
> >> yes, this is one of the things that sd_notify is for.

> > I don't think this is a conceptual difference, but both inits would be
> > able to work either way without changing their basic concepts.  So if we
> > have strong reasons to prefer one above the other this could also mean
> > convincing upstream to implement the second approach. (It also could of
> > course mean that there are too many things to adjust.)

> Agreed.

> I'd like to see both of them support systemd's method, since it's
> extensible and provides more general functionality.  I think the benefit
> of support for SIGSTOP is marginal; adding sd_notify calls is not that
> much harder and doesn't have the conceptual weirdness of stopping the
> daemon to notify the init system that it's running.

The one benefit of not using sd_notify() is that it doesn't require
introducing build-time dependencies or portability concerns; upstreams who
may not use Linux at all can still validate the correctness of the SIGSTOP
interface manually, and low barrier to entry for upstream is a good thing.

But as Andi said, there's no real conceptual difference between the two
approaches, and I don't see anything here that weighs in favor of one
project over the other.  Do you agree?  If so, perhaps we should table this
particular thread; we can always discuss the finer points of implementation
outside the TC decision.

Of course if you disagree, and feel this is a point that's relevant to the
TC decision, I'd like to understand why.

-- 
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


Reply to: