Re: Minimal init [was: A few observations about systemd]
Ian Jackson, le Tue 19 Jul 2011 16:55:58 +0100, a écrit :
> Samuel Thibault writes ("Re: Minimal init [was: A few observations about systemd]"):
> > Ian Jackson, le Tue 19 Jul 2011 16:18:54 +0100, a écrit :
> > > I think messing around with cgroups is a ridiculous way to solve this
> > > problem. The right answer is simply to change the daemons to give
> > > them an option which causes them not to fork. Then you can just have
> > > a single supervision daemon which reaps (and restarts, if desired).
> > But the daemon may want to start external tools, which may double fork.
> > It's a good thing to be able to catch them too.
> No, I don't think so. If these external tools double fork then they
> are just wrong.
Well, systemd simply wants to catch that wrong behavior.
Even without talking about double fork, a badly implemented server may
miss to kill some children. system want's to catch that, and it can be a