Re: Minimal init [was: A few observations about systemd]
- To: Marc Haber <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Cc: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Minimal init [was: A few observations about systemd]
- From: Ian Jackson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 19:14:31 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <E1QkArf-00049e-I4@swivel.zugschlus.de>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <CAE2SPAYeo0dKw1V-M3dUmBAY2NTv1gzHbK+0OPR81QoyHtnYRQ@mail.gmail.com> <email@example.com> <CAE2SPAbAd3ZxghLm+UCb-zWXA6ZZdp8btJ=4x4ep66omp1SKfirstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <20110719153904.GP8064@const.famille.thibault.fr> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <E1QkArf-00049e-I4@swivel.zugschlus.de>
Marc Haber writes ("Re: Minimal init [was: A few observations about systemd]"):
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 16:55:58 +0100, Ian Jackson
> <email@example.com> wrote:
> >No, I don't think so. If these external tools double fork then they
> >are just wrong.
> Double Forking has been the right way to do it for decades. Demanding
> >from upstreams that they change their software this fundamentally to
> cater for a new init system is as unrealistic as demanding from
> upstreams to stay around snooping for new IP addresses that came
> online after the daemon was started to cater for IPv6.
However it is very easy to patch daemons to have an option which
causes them not to fork. Most daemons /already/ have a mode in which
they don't fork, for debugging purposes.
I think we should be quite happy to carry those patches forever, for
the few upstreams who won't take them.