On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 03:30:27PM +0100, Profpatsch wrote:
> >     -f: do not doublefork. Use if the daemon waits for children it does
> >     not know it has (for instance, superservers do this). When in doubt,
> >     do not use that option, or you may have a zombie hanging around.
> 
> > when in doubt, do not use that option
> 
> Is the “that” here referring to the `-f` option or the daemon?
> In the first case, “do not use >this< option” is less ambiguous.
I'm sure it makes more sense in the original French. The way
sdnotify-wrapper works is it: forks (or double-forks) a notifyer child,
then execs into the program you are launching. Therefor the notification
helper can be a child process of the actual service. Since programs that
exit stick around in the process table until something acknowledges
them, unless the service wait()s on things it doesn't know about you'll
ens up with a defunct process if you use -f.
> 
> (This is out of my own ignorance and probably clear to somebody
> that is more into the subject matter)
> 
> 
>   Profpatsch
> 
> -- 
> Written with Emacs (mu4e) on NixOS.
> Q: Why is this email five sentences or less?
> A: http://five.sentenc.es/
> May take up to five days to read your message. If it’s urgent, call me.

-- 
Colin Booth

Reply via email to