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

Re: Making daemons compatible with systemd

Tollef Fog Heen writes ("Re: Making daemons compatible with systemd"):
> I'm looking forward to your patches for the proprietary HP and Dell
> daemons that are used for monitoring the health of various hardware
> components.

Those daemons can continue to be started and managed the way they are
already, with all the unreliability that daemon(3)+pidfiles implies.

If the vendors of those programs care about this they can provide a
new interface, and if the customers care they can try to make the
vendors care.

> (Sure, they might not be packaged for Debian, but adopting an init
> system that doesn't deal with double-forking would be much, much worse
> than adopting one which is Linux-specific for our Linux ports.)

I'm not suggesting that we should do anything that makes the existing
situation worse.  We should not adopt an init system that, with
double-forking daemons and init scripts, fails to work as well as that
approach currently does with sysvinit.

But I don't think it is a good idea to adopt a complicated workaround
(which is essentially what the cgroups approach is), to get proper
daemon supervision, when we can simply fix the root cause.


Reply to: