From owner-freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 2 15:50:07 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-rc@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D43661065696 for ; Wed, 2 Sep 2009 15:50:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BB1B8FC08 for ; Wed, 2 Sep 2009 15:50:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n82Fo4SW035678 for ; Wed, 2 Sep 2009 15:50:04 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id n82Fo4eU035677; Wed, 2 Sep 2009 15:50:04 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 15:50:04 GMT Message-Id: <200909021550.n82Fo4eU035677@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.org From: Adrian Penisoara Cc: Subject: Re: conf/138460: [patch] start local rc scripts in background X-BeenThere: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Adrian Penisoara 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: Wed, 02 Sep 2009 15:50:08 -0000 The following reply was made to PR conf/138460; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Adrian Penisoara To: Doug Barton 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 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,

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.


=A0=A0I think this idea has some (grea= t ?) merit -- almost all modern OS'es are cutting down on boot times an= d we should be working on this too.
=A0=A0It's true that it w= ould 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].


Regards,=
Adrian Penisoara
EnterpriseBSD
--0015174c35045cf71b047299cca0--