On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 14:40 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 14:08 -0400, Eric Brown wrote:
> > My point is that Snort and Apache are not alone in this, so I suppose
> > quite a few upstream developers just disagree with us on what proper
> > initialization means.  Why should our users suffer?
> 
> They shouldn't, but that doesn't mean implementing some half-baked hack
> to resolve the situation.  It might be better to instead patch the
> daemon in question and send the patches upstream.  Upstream developers
> (usually) are much more willing to make changes when you've done the
> work for them... ;]
> 

I know Roy already did the sleep check in rc-services.sh which is small,
and I think fairly acceptable, but like Mike said, you cannot make it
longer and then do it for all, as some arches is just too slow, and I'm
going to guess we have a less than 10% of services with this issue?

Personally I think the issue should be taken on a per-package basis, and
if somebody sees an issue, open a bug against snort/apache/whatever to
do a timeout, and then check some or other way if its actually started.

For the developer awareness issue ... its not always such an open/shut
case.  I can't remember what had this issue, but some daemon only
displayed this issues with slower boxes, and not the faster ones, so it
really will totally depend on what type of hardware the developer have
or not.  So yeah, better awareness by adding a section to the developer
manual or something to the test for new developers might help, but not
fool proof.


-- 
Martin Schlemmer