From owner-freebsd-gnome@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 9 05:47:37 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: gnome@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E7A8106566B; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 05:47:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marcus@freebsd.org) Received: from av-tac-rtp.cisco.com (hen.cisco.com [64.102.19.198]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFBC58FC08; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 05:47:36 +0000 (UTC) X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned Received: from rooster.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-rtp.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oA95lYnw008487; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 00:47:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from fruit-rollup.marcuscom.com (jclarke-pc.cisco.com [172.18.254.236]) by rooster.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oA95lYpU003593; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 00:47:34 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4CD8E075.9090901@freebsd.org> Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 00:47:33 -0500 From: Joe Marcus Clarke Organization: FreeBSD, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andriy Gapon References: <20101109001442.F27651CC0E@ptavv.es.net> <4CD8DDCD.3010902@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <4CD8DDCD.3010902@freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: gnome@freebsd.org, bug-followup@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports/151725: sysutils/hal: hald fails to start with dbus-1.4 X-BeenThere: freebsd-gnome@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: GNOME for FreeBSD -- porting and maintaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 05:47:37 -0000 On 11/9/10 12:36 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote: > on 09/11/2010 02:14 Kevin Oberman said the following: >> I'll try this as soon as I can. I'm not too sure that it will happen as >> I think that this is somehow timing related. I suspect that the entry is >> disappearing too quickly with 1.4 in some cases but is not a problem >> with 1.2. Perhaps some optimization? >> >> I suggest this because on at least rare occasion, 1.4 did run >> successfully, not because I have any clue what was happening under the >> covers. > > I guess that I already explained this part. > The problem happened because we tried to write something (even if it's just zero > sized something) into stdin of a child process that already exited. > Sometimes the child process was quicker, sometimes the parent process was > quicker, hence the non-determinism. > Ah, I missed that. I wonder if it would be safer then to ignore SIGPIPE around the write block. Joe -- Joe Marcus Clarke FreeBSD GNOME Team :: gnome@FreeBSD.org FreeNode / #freebsd-gnome http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome