From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Dec 3 09:47:40 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72EB81065677 for ; Sat, 3 Dec 2011 09:47:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org) Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC19F8FC0C for ; Sat, 3 Dec 2011 09:47:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from porto.starpoint.kiev.ua (porto-e.starpoint.kiev.ua [212.40.38.100]) by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id LAA13943; Sat, 03 Dec 2011 11:47:26 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by porto.starpoint.kiev.ua with esmtp (Exim 4.34 (FreeBSD)) id 1RWmBp-000EgQ-Si; Sat, 03 Dec 2011 11:47:25 +0200 Message-ID: <4ED9F02C.4070307@FreeBSD.org> Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2011 11:47:24 +0200 From: Andriy Gapon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111108 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Matthew Seaman References: <4ED8C0F1.807@FreeBSD.org> <20111202195555.GD1913@azathoth.lan> <4ED95A95.9040805@FreeBSD.org> <4ED9E3E5.2010400@infracaninophile.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <4ED9E3E5.2010400@infracaninophile.co.uk> X-Enigmail-Version: undefined Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: samm@os2.kiev.ua, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: again, ports that stop daemons X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2011 09:47:40 -0000 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