On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Lucas De Marchi > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Jukka, >> >> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Jukka Rissanen >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi Lucas, >>> >>> On 11 July 2012 18:23, Lucas De Marchi <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> 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. > > But really, if you do so you can remove the detaching code, not just
It's already done. > the option... and more, seems systemd is getting (or got?) backtracing > support so it could do the coredump storage and reporting outside of > connman. Yeah... I'll wait to see what's done to these patches first. Lucas De Marchi _______________________________________________ connman mailing list [email protected] http://lists.connman.net/listinfo/connman
