❦ 1 novembre 2015 21:21 +0100, Willy Tarreau <w...@1wt.eu> :
>> > If nobody objects, I'd rather do that so that you don't have to add
>> > a specific if/elif/endif just for this. What do you think ?
>>
>> On the other hand, it is not really systemd-specific (and could be made
>> not Linux-specific if it wasn't using /proc/self/exe to find its own
>> name). It could be useful on other systems as well, as a way to turn
>> HAProxy into a "regular" daemon. It could also be used to simplify the
>> current init.d script. I could be renamed to just "haproxy-wrapper".
>
> Sure, I've thought the same, but always with the same question in the
> end : "for what purpose ?". If we provide binaries which provide useless
> features whose purpose cannot easily be explained to their users, probably
> the binary in question should not be there. If it provides a real benefit,
> then that's different, it's a matter of packaging choice and we should not
> remove it by default. Given that I never needed it and still failed to see
> a benefit outside of systemd, I'm inclined to think we don't need it, but
> I could be wrong.
The current scripts work fine, so, yes, there is little interest in
adding a binary to do the same thing. It could be useful with other
supervisors (like supervisor, runit) or inside containers.
I don't use it outside systemd either, so it was just an idea. It can be
removed from the default build until someone needs it outside systemd
(and provide the patches to make it generic).
--
Keep it simple to make it faster.
- The Elements of Programming Style (Kernighan & Plauger)
