From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Sep 1 05:49:00 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCB5816A418 for ; Sat, 1 Sep 2007 05:49:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx22.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 80A7713C474 for ; Sat, 1 Sep 2007 05:49:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 14248 invoked by uid 399); 1 Sep 2007 05:49:00 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO slave.dougb.net) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with ESMTP; 1 Sep 2007 05:49:00 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 22:48:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug Barton To: Sean Bruno In-Reply-To: <46D84D70.50406@miralink.com> Message-ID: References: <46D84609.3080409@miralink.com> <46D84D70.50406@miralink.com> X-message-flag: Outlook -- Not just for spreading viruses anymore! X-OpenPGP-Key-ID: 0xD5B2F0FB Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: rc functions don't allow processes to shutdown X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 05:49:00 -0000 On Fri, 31 Aug 2007, Sean Bruno wrote: > Doug Barton wrote: >> Assuming that lack of an affirmative _enable variable is a constant, the >> only way that a service can be started is with either onestart or >> forcestart. The symmetry here would be to stop it the same way. >> > This may be symmetrical, but I question whether or not the 'correct' behavior > is symmetrical. > > I don't see the benefit to the end user in this implementation, e.g. trying > to disable a running service. If a new-ish admin edits the rc.conf prior to > shutting down the service, there could be some consternation. I would chalk this up to one of the many things that an inexperienced admin needs to learn about system administration. I am heavily in favor of reasonable changes to improve usability, however I think you're tilting at a windmill here. Here you have articulated one edge case where the "expected" behavior is something other than what happens now, but I completely fail to see how any benefit that might accrue from changing the code to "fix" this edge case overcomes the cost of the POLA violation we'd commit by changing the code at this late stage in the life of rc.d. > However, my entire idea of how to shut down a process in FreeBSD may be > flawed, and I may be the one who is in need of a 'design change'. :) I don't think it's flawed, but I think you're preoccupied with something that is not that big of a problem that already has a convenient solution. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection