On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 11:51:19AM -0700, eliott wrote:
> Jason Chu said:
> > Leaving things the way they are also doesn't help this. Just because the
> > proposed solution doesn't cover every possible case doesn't mean it isn't
> > good. It's still an improvement over what currently exists.
>
> A bad solution is not always an improvement over no solution. I think
> basing a daemon stop order on time is an inherently bad idea. It would
-------------------
This is where I disagree. Please convince me otherwise.> make more sense to me to have an alternate designator in the daemons > array, that implies that it should not be started by the system...but if > it is running at shutdown, it should be stopped.. > > We have a designator for backgrounding start '@', and for a no start '!'. > I would say if we have a '!' in front of a daemon, we should check to see > if it is running at shutdown (by checking it's entry in the /var/run dir) > and then simply stop it. It would then still be up to the user to set the > start/stop order. > > I was just concerned about relying on a timestamp, not simply disregarding > the usefulness of such a thing. Using a designator seems like an ok idea, assuming you have that much pre-cognition. The time-based solution handles even the one-offs, where you're trying out a daemon and you're not sure if you want it. We already have something to kill daemons that weren't killed in the DAEMONS run. The question is the order those spare daemons are killed in. Currently it's alphabetical, the proposal is to change it to time-based. Jason -- If you understand, things are just as they are. If you do not understand, things are just as they are.
pgpp2iN14CE4W.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
