Defining the workgroup objectives

[Gerrit Pape]

On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 07:27:24PM +0200, a-aa wrote:
> Gerrit Pape wrote:
> >Actually --no-fork isn't an additional task to do, it's doing less;
> >simply skipping fork, detach, exec.  pid files also are unnecessary when
> >running under a parent, again less to code to write or run.  What about
> >knowing when they actually terminate?, the parent knows.
> >
> I know that, but this is a problem I've seen "in real life" in the
> development of initng.
> dbus - started using --no-fork, as we have no way of knowing if it's
> "ready" hald is started immediatly after it, and fails on fast system,
> because dbus hasn't opened the comunication system, so hald can't connect.

This is inconsistent: if "hald" fails, then you have a way of knowing
whether it's ready; it's not ready because "hald" fails.  Find out why
"hald" fails and use this check to test whether it's ready.  This seems
to be a special case you describe, can well be handled with runit's 
dependency concept though.

Waiting for dbus to detach isn't a reliable solution, maybe for system
startup, but not for the system's uptime: dbus could terminate
immediately after fork and exec; or it could terminate any time later,
causing "hold" also to fail later.  You can handle this when running the
daemons under a parent.

Regards, Gerrit.
-- 
Open projects at http://smarden.org/pape/.