Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2011 11:47:24 +0200 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> To: Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> Cc: samm@os2.kiev.ua, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: again, ports that stop daemons Message-ID: <4ED9F02C.4070307@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4ED9E3E5.2010400@infracaninophile.co.uk> References: <4ED8C0F1.807@FreeBSD.org> <CAJ_iqta0OCB8SktnR4fXawvEGiGx92wEgtaowMp1U2ooHiMa7Q@mail.gmail.com> <20111202195555.GD1913@azathoth.lan> <4ED95A95.9040805@FreeBSD.org> <CADLo83_oR02q5XAM%2BcmgZE3YmoTkoXdLp-KCZEn-=kVz7ph21A@mail.gmail.com> <4ED9E3E5.2010400@infracaninophile.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4ED9F02C.4070307>