On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 12:55:06PM +0100, Tim Düsterhus wrote: > William, > > Am 20.11.2017 um 12:01 schrieb William Lallemand: > >> The only difference I can see is that haproxy will fail to start for a > >> different reason (use of undefined option, instead of not sending the > >> READY=1 notification) if one uses the provided unit file *without* > >> compiling with USE_SYSTEMD. > >> Thus in my opinion a separate -Ws option will increase cognitive load > >> (which > >> option should I use?) for next to no benefit. > > > > > > Well, it's a matter of documentation, and a line to add in the usage() > > function > > IMO. > > > > This option ensures one thing, if the -Ws option is used in the unit file by > > default, and if by any chance a binary was not built with the right > > USE_SYSTEMD=1 option, it won't work at all preventing useless bug reports. > > We > > can even put a Warning when trying to use this option when it's not built. > > > > May I suggest the following: If haproxy is *not* compiled with the > `USE_SYSTEMD` option it checks for the existence of the `NOTIFY_SOCKET` > environment variable and refuses start up, if it is defined. > > Then `Type=notify` will "just work" if haproxy is compiled with the > option and will emit a proper error message if it is not. >
If you're suggesting of doing this with -W, it's not a good idea, sometimes you just want to start HAProxy for tests or development independently of any init system. -- William Lallemand
