From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DuwC0-00007x-RH for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 17:47:45 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j6JHk85s030895; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 17:46:08 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j6JHiBM2009515 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 17:44:11 GMT Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=home.wh0rd.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Duw9W-0001pl-OA for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 17:45:10 +0000 Received: (qmail 14834 invoked from network); 19 Jul 2005 13:43:37 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO vapier) (192.168.0.2) by 192.168.0.1 with SMTP; 19 Jul 2005 13:43:37 -0400 From: Mike Frysinger Organization: wh0rd.org To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] init script guidelines Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 13:45:20 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.1 References: <16CC9569DA3E4D41A1D4BC25D7B5A16A473A7C@hercules.magbank.com> In-Reply-To: <16CC9569DA3E4D41A1D4BC25D7B5A16A473A7C@hercules.magbank.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-6" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200507191345.20629.vapier@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 7d093c88-b395-4600-8a4c-f45ca52a3066 X-Archives-Hash: 63f4ef765841dc10cf9e29bccc3a10ad On Tuesday 19 July 2005 12:42 pm, Eric Brown wrote: > The real problem is not that the daemons don't return errors, but that > our init scripts do not make reasonable attempts to verify service startup. i'd disagree ... if a service sucks, it sucks adding some code to try and guess whether the service actually started is a roundabout (and by no means fool proof) way of doing things ... it may result in correct results sometimes, but i imagine it'll also be susceptible to false positives > If a Gentoo init script claims that a service started, it should make an > effort to check that the processes are actually running shortly after the > script is run how do you define 'short' ? really anything that relies on sometime out value like this is a flawed design ... just cause your smokin fast amd64 should complete in .1 seconds doesnt mean my not-very-smokin-fast-at-all arm netwinder can complete inside of 3 seconds > Relying on the return > value of start-stop-daemon is simply insufficient for some services. then those services should not be using ssd > I propose increasing developer awareness of this problem, perhaps > through some formal guidelines for ebuild developers. this seems to be the only feasible approach (and one i'm all for) -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list