Re: again, ports that stop daemons
W dniu 2011-12-09 22:25, Doug Barton pisze: I previously described what I thought was a pretty good way to handle this question that addressed the needs expressed by all of the posters on the previous thread, but my suggestion didn't get any responses. Since this has come up again, it would be helpful (to me at least) if people would think about my idea, and if nothing else tell me why I'm wrong. :) +1 to the idea. -- best regards, Lukasz Wasikowski ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: again, ports that stop daemons
On 11/12/2011 07:19, Jason Hellenthal wrote: If end-user is upgrading a package they should be prepared to take any neccesary action to start the services again after final actions are complete. Desperate services could have a periodic script that could handle the checks for these services and I strongly advise against taking any action whatsoever on starting or restarting or reloading. Like this? http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/articles/hotchpotch.html#status-rc Not that I entirely disagree with having a mechanism available to restart daemons on update, but yes, it should definitely be optional and configurable and the docco should explain very clearly that *it will not work properly in all cases*. There are too many corner cases where you've got to worry about the order in which services are restarted, plus things like needing to restart a completely different service when certain ports get upgraded. Consider what needs to happen if you update a commonly used shlib to fix an important problem but without there being an ABI bump... Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate JID: matt...@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: again, ports that stop daemons
On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 01:25:25PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote: On 12/09/2011 13:18, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 01:09:09AM +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote: on 02/12/2011 21:55 Baptiste Daroussin said the following: On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 08:38:05PM +0100, Torfinn Ingolfsen wrote: On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Andriy Gapon a...@freebsd.org wrote: Or that they simply quit doing that and instead print a message like Port X is deinstalled but it may have some processes running, please do Y and/or Z to find them and/or stop them. I prefer this suggestion. I also would prefer this. BTW, this part of my suggestion was inspired by the following: http://en.opensuse.org/SDB:Zypper_usage_11.3#Check_processes Not sure how that feature is implemented though. FYI, since a few minutes, pkgng handle rc scripts, disabled by default because I still consider this feature dangerous. to activate it is: HANDLE_RC_SCRIPTS=yes in pkg.conf I previously described what I thought was a pretty good way to handle this question that addressed the needs expressed by all of the posters on the previous thread, but my suggestion didn't get any responses. Since this has come up again, it would be helpful (to me at least) if people would think about my idea, and if nothing else tell me why I'm wrong. :) Quoting: Speaking only for myself I hate the idea of stopping/starting services automatically. However this feature is often requested, and is something that is provided by many other package systems. If we have people who are willing to do the work I think it's worth discussing how to do it properly. The way that I envision it working would be a 3-knob system. One knob to always restart the services, one to never do it; and then asking on a per-port basis, which should be the default. I can imagine portmaster detecting this option in the pre-build phase similarly to how it detects and warns about IS_INTERACTIVE now, and giving the user a menu of options for how to handle it. I'm happy to add more details if people are interested. Where this actually becomes interesting is not in the ports build/install process, which is pretty easy to deal with, but with package installs/deinstalls. I definitely think it's doable, what we probably want to do is put a knob for this in the port's Makefile, and handle the stop/start for both the port and the package with a little script that can be included in the package, and run with @exec and @unexec. Personally I think this is a little overboard... not your idea but the fact of trying to determine a function of restarting services for the user. If end-user is upgrading a package they should be prepared to take any neccesary action to start the services again after final actions are complete. Desperate services could have a periodic script that could handle the checks for these services and I strongly advise against taking any action whatsoever on starting or restarting or reloading. Stop the service if need be but never assume anything about starting a service without strict user interaction. If at all likelyness that this happens then I have one request... One simple knob that defaults to ``NO'' for restarting or starting or reloading. I think this is at least reasonable. pgpJw7e8whopf.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: again, ports that stop daemons
On 12/09/2011 13:18, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 01:09:09AM +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote: on 02/12/2011 21:55 Baptiste Daroussin said the following: On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 08:38:05PM +0100, Torfinn Ingolfsen wrote: On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Andriy Gapon a...@freebsd.org wrote: Or that they simply quit doing that and instead print a message like Port X is deinstalled but it may have some processes running, please do Y and/or Z to find them and/or stop them. I prefer this suggestion. I also would prefer this. BTW, this part of my suggestion was inspired by the following: http://en.opensuse.org/SDB:Zypper_usage_11.3#Check_processes Not sure how that feature is implemented though. FYI, since a few minutes, pkgng handle rc scripts, disabled by default because I still consider this feature dangerous. to activate it is: HANDLE_RC_SCRIPTS=yes in pkg.conf I previously described what I thought was a pretty good way to handle this question that addressed the needs expressed by all of the posters on the previous thread, but my suggestion didn't get any responses. Since this has come up again, it would be helpful (to me at least) if people would think about my idea, and if nothing else tell me why I'm wrong. :) Quoting: Speaking only for myself I hate the idea of stopping/starting services automatically. However this feature is often requested, and is something that is provided by many other package systems. If we have people who are willing to do the work I think it's worth discussing how to do it properly. The way that I envision it working would be a 3-knob system. One knob to always restart the services, one to never do it; and then asking on a per-port basis, which should be the default. I can imagine portmaster detecting this option in the pre-build phase similarly to how it detects and warns about IS_INTERACTIVE now, and giving the user a menu of options for how to handle it. I'm happy to add more details if people are interested. Where this actually becomes interesting is not in the ports build/install process, which is pretty easy to deal with, but with package installs/deinstalls. I definitely think it's doable, what we probably want to do is put a knob for this in the port's Makefile, and handle the stop/start for both the port and the package with a little script that can be included in the package, and run with @exec and @unexec. -- [^L] Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/ ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: again, ports that stop daemons
On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 01:25:25PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote: On 12/09/2011 13:18, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 01:09:09AM +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote: on 02/12/2011 21:55 Baptiste Daroussin said the following: On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 08:38:05PM +0100, Torfinn Ingolfsen wrote: On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Andriy Gapon a...@freebsd.org wrote: Or that they simply quit doing that and instead print a message like Port X is deinstalled but it may have some processes running, please do Y and/or Z to find them and/or stop them. I prefer this suggestion. I also would prefer this. BTW, this part of my suggestion was inspired by the following: http://en.opensuse.org/SDB:Zypper_usage_11.3#Check_processes Not sure how that feature is implemented though. FYI, since a few minutes, pkgng handle rc scripts, disabled by default because I still consider this feature dangerous. to activate it is: HANDLE_RC_SCRIPTS=yes in pkg.conf I previously described what I thought was a pretty good way to handle this question that addressed the needs expressed by all of the posters on the previous thread, but my suggestion didn't get any responses. Since this has come up again, it would be helpful (to me at least) if people would think about my idea, and if nothing else tell me why I'm wrong. :) And I previously read what you already said, but thanks, for providing your opinion again that help to see how our implementation matches user idea Quoting: Speaking only for myself I hate the idea of stopping/starting services automatically. However this feature is often requested, and is something that is provided by many other package systems. If we have people who are willing to do the work I think it's worth discussing how to do it properly. Completly agree that is why it is also deactivated by default. The way that I envision it working would be a 3-knob system. One knob to always restart the services, one to never do it; and then asking on a per-port basis, which should be the default. I can imagine portmaster detecting this option in the pre-build phase similarly to how it detects and warns about IS_INTERACTIVE now, and giving the user a menu of options for how to handle it. I'm happy to add more details if people are interested. Where this actually becomes interesting is not in the ports build/install process, which is pretty easy to deal with, but with package installs/deinstalls. I definitely think it's doable, what we probably want to do is put a knob for this in the port's Makefile, and handle the stop/start for both the port and the package with a little script that can be included in the package, and run with @exec and @unexec. I really do think this a package management feature, not a port feature, the way this is now done, in pkgng is mostly what you have says, except for the interactive one. the way it is handle in pkgng can work both for binary package and for source upgrade (here goes portmaster :)) transparently, it will handle all the rc scripts without forgetting one, not relying on what can be set or forgotten by the maintainer. I hate interactive packages, that is why I didn't add the interactive way, but patches are welcome to add interactive rc script management in pkgng :). regards, Bapt pgpgMkE4kg8VP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: again, ports that stop daemons
On 2 December 2011 23:09, Andriy Gapon a...@freebsd.org wrote: on 02/12/2011 21:55 Baptiste Daroussin said the following: On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 08:38:05PM +0100, Torfinn Ingolfsen wrote: On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Andriy Gapon a...@freebsd.org wrote: Or that they simply quit doing that and instead print a message like Port X is deinstalled but it may have some processes running, please do Y and/or Z to find them and/or stop them. I prefer this suggestion. I also would prefer this. BTW, this part of my suggestion was inspired by the following: http://en.opensuse.org/SDB:Zypper_usage_11.3#Check_processes Not sure how that feature is implemented though. A little service magic would do; [ service blargh status 2/dev/null ] echo DON'T FORGET TO STOP THIS SERVICE!!! I'll prepare a patch, as long as there's some chance of it going in ;) Chris ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: again, ports that stop daemons
On 3 Dec 2011 08:38, Chris Rees cr...@freebsd.org wrote: On 2 December 2011 23:09, Andriy Gapon a...@freebsd.org wrote: on 02/12/2011 21:55 Baptiste Daroussin said the following: On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 08:38:05PM +0100, Torfinn Ingolfsen wrote: On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Andriy Gapon a...@freebsd.org wrote: Or that they simply quit doing that and instead print a message like Port X is deinstalled but it may have some processes running, please do Y and/or Z to find them and/or stop them. I prefer this suggestion. I also would prefer this. BTW, this part of my suggestion was inspired by the following: http://en.opensuse.org/SDB:Zypper_usage_11.3#Check_processes Not sure how that feature is implemented though. A little service magic would do; [ service blargh status 2/dev/null ] echo DON'T FORGET TO STOP THIS SERVICE!!! Ahem, sorry, forget the square brackets... d'oh I'll prepare a patch, as long as there's some chance of it going in ;) Chris ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: again, ports that stop daemons
On 03/12/2011 08:38, Chris Rees wrote: A little service magic would do; [ service blargh status 2/dev/null ] echo DON'T FORGET TO STOP THIS SERVICE!!! I'll prepare a patch, as long as there's some chance of it going in ;) Of course, there's always the problem that the service may be being deleted entirely, or may radically change the way it manages start/stop of its daemons, so you get left with a bunch of old daemons still running and no foolproof way of identifying and stopping them. It's all down to ports not having an 'update' target per se, and conceptually turning that into 'deinstall, install' -- you can't tell that any particular 'deinstall' invocation is intended to be closely followed by a new install or not. Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate JID: matt...@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: again, ports that stop daemons
on 03/12/2011 10:55 Matthew Seaman said the following: On 03/12/2011 08:38, Chris Rees wrote: A little service magic would do; [ service blargh status 2/dev/null ] echo DON'T FORGET TO STOP THIS SERVICE!!! I'll prepare a patch, as long as there's some chance of it going in ;) Of course, there's always the problem that the service may be being deleted entirely, or may radically change the way it manages start/stop of its daemons, so you get left with a bunch of old daemons still running and no foolproof way of identifying and stopping them. It's all down to ports not having an 'update' target per se, and conceptually turning that into 'deinstall, install' -- you can't tell that any particular 'deinstall' invocation is intended to be closely followed by a new install or not. You speak theoretically and you are right. But can anyone tell me (including port's maintainer) why for example smartd has to do that? It has only one daemon which is trivially identifiable and which can not do any possible harm while running (although it may let harm happen when _not_ running). -- Andriy Gapon ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
again, ports that stop daemons
Can I again suggest that ports that stop their daemons on deinstall should (MUST) try to (re-)start them upon install? Or that they simply quit doing that and instead print a message like Port X is deinstalled but it may have some processes running, please do Y and/or Z to find them and/or stop them. We've seen some much better solutions being proposed (configurable behavior, etc), but their implementation would take some time and the current status quo is a real PITA. Thank you very much for your attention. -- Andriy Gapon ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: again, ports that stop daemons
On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 08:38:05PM +0100, Torfinn Ingolfsen wrote: On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Andriy Gapon a...@freebsd.org wrote: Or that they simply quit doing that and instead print a message like Port X is deinstalled but it may have some processes running, please do Y and/or Z to find them and/or stop them. I prefer this suggestion. I also would prefer this. regards, Bapt pgp2Jk5IiCTD6.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: again, ports that stop daemons
on 02/12/2011 21:55 Baptiste Daroussin said the following: On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 08:38:05PM +0100, Torfinn Ingolfsen wrote: On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Andriy Gapon a...@freebsd.org wrote: Or that they simply quit doing that and instead print a message like Port X is deinstalled but it may have some processes running, please do Y and/or Z to find them and/or stop them. I prefer this suggestion. I also would prefer this. BTW, this part of my suggestion was inspired by the following: http://en.opensuse.org/SDB:Zypper_usage_11.3#Check_processes Not sure how that feature is implemented though. -- Andriy Gapon ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
