On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 10:53:10AM -0500, Jiri B wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 07:47:32AM +0100, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 06:47:05PM -0500, Jiri B wrote:
> > > On Sat, Feb 04, 2012 at 09:27:53PM +0000, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > > > as to the rc.d thing; the daemon *does* start and is running when
> > > > rc_check examines it, but exits afterwards.
> > >
> > > # cat -n /etc/rc.d/rc.subr | sed -n '117,129p'
> > > 117 while true; do # no real loop, only needed to
> > > break
> > > 118 if type rc_pre >/dev/null; then
> > > 119 rc_do rc_pre || break
> > > 120 fi
> > > 121 # XXX only checks the status of the
> > > return code,
> > > 122 # and _not_ that the daemon is actually
> > > running
> > > 123 rc_do rc_start || break
> > > 124 if [ -n "${_bg}" ]; then
> > > 125 sleep 1
> > > 126 rc_do rc_wait start || break
> > > 127 fi
> > > 128 rc_do rc_write_runfile
> > > 129 rc_exit ok
> > >
> > > Not true, there's no rc_check at all. Any idea what's the logic behind?
> > >
> > > Reporting 'ok' has no real sense. I understand that my own problem was
> > > configuration, true, but having no check and just echoing 'ok' is strange
> > > to me.
> >
> > It is impossible to report whether start was OK in a _timely_ fashion and
> > without false positive.
> > Some daemons can run for like 20 or 30 seconds spawning stuffs, making
> > checks... then exiting because there is in fact a problem.
> > See comments line 121 and 122. "ok" means the daemon was started and return
> > code was ok.
>
> Well, I still think it would be worth to add rc_check after rc_start, even I
> understand
> your argument about false positive.
This has been discussed in the past already and we will not add it.
This could potentially delay the startup bu a _big_ amount of time.
--
Antoine
