Re: Not stopping daemons, where are we?
On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 04:36:56PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote:
>> Either I don't understand the usage scenario you are talking about, or I
>> misunderstand what is being proposed in this thread, or you
>> misunderstand what is being proposed in this thread. Here is a more
>> concrete example of a situation based on what I think is being proposed:
>> The Debian maintainer for a specific VPN decides it does not need
>> special shutdown handling, so he marks it to not require calling
>> "/etc/init.d/SuperVPN stop" when doing a shutdown or reboot. This is
>> what I understand this thread is about. This will result in SuperVPN
>> not being stopped until the final "kill all remaining processes" step of
>> the halt or reboot (i.e. don't waste time shutting this daemon down
>> cleanly, let it die abruptly just before halting).
> Well, sending SIGTERM should not cause software to die abruptly, and IIRC
> sending SIGTERM to all processes happens before sending SIGKILL.
The point is that this new proposal applies only to services whose
maintainers decide they do *not* need graceful handling. If you have
another process that does need a graceful shutdown, it's only ever been
guaranteed if you give that process a shutdown script with the right
sequence number, and *all* such shutdown scripts are run *before* the
killall5 is sent.
If something depends on a particular /other/ service to be shut down
gracefully, and this hasn't been coordinated with the package providing the
service, then that something is broken by design. Shooting it in the head
is a feature.
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/