On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 15:50 -0700, Alan Coopersmith wrote: > Darren Reed wrote: > > One could argue that the original daemon() does not offer much flexibility > > and that this approach to daemonization is actually not sufficient in SMF > > world. While this is true, it is out of scope of this case to provide modern > > alternative. > > While providing an alternative interface is both out-of-scope, and missing > the point of providing a BSD/Linux compatible interface, have you discussed > with the SMF team whether daemon() should be putting the process into a new > process contract?
It presumably should not be; otherwise no daemon started from an SMF service would be restarted by the service. -Seb
