Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 2 Sep 2009 15:50:04 GMT
From:      Adrian Penisoara <ady@freebsd.ady.ro>
To:        freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: conf/138460: [patch] start local rc scripts in background
Message-ID:  <200909021550.n82Fo4eU035677@freefall.freebsd.org>

next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR conf/138460; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Adrian Penisoara <ady@freebsd.ady.ro>
To: Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org>
Cc: bug-followup@freebsd.org, villa.alberto@gmail.com, freebsd-rc@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: conf/138460: [patch] start local rc scripts in background
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 17:19:50 +0200

 --0015174c35045cf71b047299cca0
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
 
 Hi,
 On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 4:36 PM, Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> wrote:
 
 > I object to this patch on at least 2 grounds. First the lack of BEFORE
 > in a script does not mean that it is safe to background it. Some other
 > script could easily depend on the service directly via REQUIRE, or
 > (unfortunately) there could be indirect dependencies that are not
 > properly labeled now because we've never needed to label them.
 > Personally I actively discourage the use of BEFORE because I think it
 > makes it harder to debug ordering problems although it is occasionally
 > necessary.
 >
 > Second it is actually fairly common for locally installed scripts from
 > the ports tree at least to depend on each other, and this is not a bug.
 >
 > The way to approach this would be to add a flag, probably in rc.conf,
 > to indicate that it is safe to background a given service. Then
 > rc.subr would have to grow support for this but that shouldn't be too
 > hard. If you'd like to follow up in that regard you should send a
 > message to freebsd-rc@freebsd.org.
 >
 > Unless someone else really thinks this is a good idea I plan to close
 > this PR.
 >
 >
   I think this idea has some (great ?) merit -- almost all modern OS'es are
 cutting down on boot times and we should be working on this too.
   It's true that it would take a lot more work than a simple few-lines patch
 to do it right, but it's worth working on it, at least personally I intend
 to work on this at one point [1].
 
 [1]
 https://blueprints.launchpad.net/enterprisebsd/+spec/ebsd-rc.d-startup-fix
 
 Regards,
 Adrian Penisoara
 EnterpriseBSD
 
 --0015174c35045cf71b047299cca0
 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
 Hi,<div><br></div><div><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 4:=
 36 PM, Doug Barton <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:dougb@freebsd.or=
 g">dougb@freebsd.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_qu=
 ote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex=
 ;">
 I object to this patch on at least 2 grounds. First the lack of BEFORE<br>
 in a script does not mean that it is safe to background it. Some other<br>
 script could easily depend on the service directly via REQUIRE, or<br>
 (unfortunately) there could be indirect dependencies that are not<br>
 properly labeled now because we&#39;ve never needed to label them.<br>
 Personally I actively discourage the use of BEFORE because I think it<br>
 makes it harder to debug ordering problems although it is occasionally<br>
 necessary.<br>
 <br>
 Second it is actually fairly common for locally installed scripts from<br>
 the ports tree at least to depend on each other, and this is not a bug.<br>
 <br>
 The way to approach this would be to add a flag, probably in rc.conf,<br>
 to indicate that it is safe to background a given service. Then<br>
 rc.subr would have to grow support for this but that shouldn&#39;t be too<b=
 r>
 hard. If you&#39;d like to follow up in that regard you should send a<br>
 message to <a href=3D"mailto:freebsd-rc@freebsd.org">freebsd-rc@freebsd.org=
 </a>.<br>
 <br>
 Unless someone else really thinks this is a good idea I plan to close<br>
 this PR.<br>
 <br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>=A0=A0I think this idea has some (grea=
 t ?) merit -- almost all modern OS&#39;es are cutting down on boot times an=
 d we should be working on this too.</div><div>=A0=A0It&#39;s true that it w=
 ould take a lot more work than a simple few-lines patch to do it right, but=
  it&#39;s worth working on it, at least personally I intend to work on this=
  at one point [1].</div>
 <div><br></div><div>[1]=A0<a href=3D"https://blueprints.launchpad.net/enter=
 prisebsd/+spec/ebsd-rc.d-startup-fix">https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ente=
 rprisebsd/+spec/ebsd-rc.d-startup-fix</a></div><div><br></div><div>Regards,=
 </div>
 <div>Adrian Penisoara</div><div>EnterpriseBSD</div></div></div>
 
 --0015174c35045cf71b047299cca0--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200909021550.n82Fo4eU035677>