On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Marcel Holtmann <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Gustavo,
>
>> >>> Letting systemd daemonize connmand, as we are already doing, there's no
>> >>> need to have an option "-n" since it will work for both debugging and
>> >>> running it as a daemon. Therefore, just remove the option.
>> >>>
>> >>> Other init systems may use whatever method they have to turn connmand 
>> >>> into a
>> >>> daemon.
>> >>
>> >> You are breaking an API by removing an option, now connman will not
>> >> start if user supplies -n option.
>> >
>> > humn?  Command line parameters are part of an API?
>> >
>> > We provide script to start with systemd, and that is updated as well.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Anyway, I do not see much point removing functionality that is useful
>> >> when systemd is not being used. So NACK from me.
>> >
>> > The point here is simplification... there's no point in dealing with
>> > this today - whatever init is starting connmand can turn it into a
>> > daemon. And if doesn't have native support for this (I really hope all
>> > init implementations have), it could use helper programs.
>>
>> Marcel keeps saying he wants to just support systemd systems, then
>> this would make sense.
>
> yes, that is the plan.
>
>> But really, if you do so you can remove the detaching code, not just
>> the option... and more, seems systemd is getting (or got?) backtracing
>> support so it could do the coredump storage and reporting outside of
>> connman.
>
> We can not screw over the developers. So something like debug output
> going to the command line with -n when testing manually needs to be
> supported in one way or another. I need to look into this a bit for ELL
> as well.

ahn? Did you read the patch?

It's doing exactly that. Messages are going to stderr. Always. "-n"
can be removed because it's always started in foreground, letting
whoever (systemd) started the daemon to redirect the log messages to
syslog.


Lucas De Marchi
_______________________________________________
connman mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.connman.net/listinfo/connman

Reply via email to