On 17/08/09 04:37 PM, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > Nicolas Williams wrote: >> >> >> >>> I'm disinclined to support an interface that is substandard *and* >>> which does not share widespread adoption in the FOSS community. >>> >> >> In general daemon() is not powerful enough. Often one wants the process >> that calls it to not exit until the progeny forked by daemon() has >> completed additional initialization, or perhaps one should not call >> daemon() until sundry initialization is complete. >> >> But daemon() is quite common. Its absence is usually well-tolerated >> (#ifndef HAVE_DAEMON ...). But still, we should provide it. >> >> >>> If I've misunderstood about the availability of daemon() in Linux, >>> please feel free to correct me. Otherwise I'd be punching the >>> derail button on this case. >>> >> >> It's there in libc in RHEL5. >> > > If its there in RHEL5, then I'll withdraw my major concerns. I think > the documentation should point users to other, more robust ways of > dealing with daemon startup. > Last question: Is "Committed" the way to deal with this? If we want > to steer developers elsewhere, should we instead just list this > interface with "Committed Obsolete" or perhaps "Uncommitted".
Why? Would we plan on removing daemon() in the future? I can't see us replacing it with a function that does anything else... I'm sure the discussion would be much more heated if someone tried to ARC a daemon() that behaved any differently. And whilst its functionality may be basic, sometimes that is all that is wanted. I see no harm with this being Committed. Where else can we steer developers? Darren
