Re: [DNG] tiny service state api [WAS: Fwd: init system agnosticism]

2017-04-16 Thread Steve Litt
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 19:22:36 -0400 Hendrik Boom wrote: > On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 05:04:18PM -0400, Hendrik Boom wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 09:59:36PM +0200, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT > > consult wrote: > > > By the way: maybe we should write an RFC draft for the

Re: [DNG] tiny service state api [WAS: Fwd: init system agnosticism]

2017-04-16 Thread Hendrik Boom
On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 09:59:36PM +0200, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote: > On 15.04.2017 19:50, Steve Litt wrote: > > > About my characterizations: "Baroque" is a relative thing. What I wrote > > was based on "why would you not simply use a process supervisor like > > systemd?" If a

Re: [DNG] tiny service state api [WAS: Fwd: init system agnosticism]

2017-04-16 Thread karl
Enrico Weigelt: ... > If one doesn't want a supervisor, why not just using something like > start-stop-daemon ? IIRC, it should handle that quite well. Why not just start the program and kill it when not needed anymore ? You know, you don't have to have a supervisor. > I wonder why that general

Re: [DNG] tiny service state api [WAS: Fwd: init system agnosticism]

2017-04-16 Thread Hendrik Boom
On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 05:04:18PM -0400, Hendrik Boom wrote: > On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 09:59:36PM +0200, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult > wrote: > > On 15.04.2017 19:50, Steve Litt wrote: > > > > > About my characterizations: "Baroque" is a relative thing. What I wrote > > > was based on "why

[DNG] Some links found at a report on a Debian bug squashing party

2017-04-16 Thread Hendrik Boom
Recently I failed to attend a Debian bug squashing party here in Montreal because I was otherwise engaged that day. If I had attended I would have learned something about Debian packaging, which could perhaps have been useful here. But the report on the bug squashing party contains links to

Re: [DNG] Some links found at a report on a Debian bug squashing party

2017-04-16 Thread golinux
On 2017-04-16 19:21, Hendrik Boom wrote: Recently I failed to attend a Debian bug squashing party here in Montreal because I was otherwise engaged that day. If I had attended I would have learned something about Debian packaging, which could perhaps have been useful here. But the report on

Re: [DNG] /etc/debian_version

2017-04-16 Thread KatolaZ
On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 08:32:30PM -0700, Gregory Nowak wrote: > On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 01:06:53PM +0200, Jaromil wrote: > > Yet I believe we should file this as a bug as /etc/debian_version is > > not there on new installs. The /etc/debian_version file is checked by > > an enormous quantity of

Re: [DNG] tiny service state api [WAS: Fwd: init system agnosticism]

2017-04-16 Thread Steve Litt
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 10:01:02 +0200 marc wrote in response to Steve Litt: > > And therefore I was wondering > > why fork_parent() didn't take a function address as an argument, and > > call that callback function's address where you have the elipses. > > No function

Re: [DNG] tiny service state api [WAS: Fwd: init system agnosticism]

2017-04-16 Thread Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
On 15.04.2017 19:50, Steve Litt wrote: > About my characterizations: "Baroque" is a relative thing. What I wrote > was based on "why would you not simply use a process supervisor like > systemd?" If a person has a reason not to use such a supervisor, and in > fact the whole OpenRC init system