From owner-freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 17 07:55:01 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx2.freebsd.org (mx2.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::35]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A589106566B; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 07:55:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from 172-17-198-245.globalsuite.net (hub.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::36]) by mx2.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14BB514DC02; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 07:55:01 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4EC4BDD4.7010705@FreeBSD.org> Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 23:55:00 -0800 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111110 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andriy Gapon References: <4EC3E667.4080906@FreeBSD.org> <20111116173856.GA31200@stack.nl> <4EC3F8EC.2010005@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4EC3F8EC.2010005@FreeBSD.org> X-Enigmail-Version: undefined OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: KEYWORD: shutdown X-BeenThere: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion related to /etc/rc.d design and implementation." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 07:55:01 -0000 On 11/16/2011 09:54, Andriy Gapon wrote: > on 16/11/2011 19:38 Jilles Tjoelker said the following: >> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 06:35:51PM +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote: >>> I am new to all the rc stuff, so please pardon me if I am asking >>> something obvious or silly. What are the main reasons to _not_ have >>> the "shutdown" keyword in an rc script? What are the examples / >>> usages? >> >> Traditionally only very few scripts had "shutdown", leaving most of the >> cleanup to the SIGTERM and SIGKILL from init. >> >> Because it was fairly complicated to get this right (for example, a >> database server needs "shutdown" but also all programs that use it), a >> few years ago it was decided to add "shutdown" everywhere. The slower >> shutdown (a few seconds at most on machines with decent CPUs, but >> possibly rather more on slow embedded machines) was accepted. >> > > So nowadays (or "if I got to do it again") it would make more sense to have > "shutdown" as a default and add "noshutdown" for some hypothetical special cases? Not necessarily. For example, out of 151 scripts in /etc/rc.d only 52 of them use it (and I am pretty confident I added it to all scripts that start persistent services which didn't already have it). IOW, rc.d is used to do a lot of things at boot time in addition to starting daemons. In fairness most of the 800'ish rc.d scripts in ports do start a daemon, so your idea isn't totally off base, I'm just saying that what the default should be isn't as clear cut as you may think. Doug -- "We could put the whole Internet into a book." "Too practical." Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/