--nextPart1848841.mkgRyaegMq
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
On Friday 31 August 2007 18:51:23 Sean Bruno wrote:
> Tobias Roth wrote:
> > Sean Bruno wrote:
> >> I noticed that if rc.conf has ntpd_enable=3D"NO", an invocation of
> >> /etc/rc.d/ntpd stop won't actually shut down ntpd. I checked a
> >> couple of other processes(like net-snmp) and noted the same
> >> behavior.
> >>
> >> I would have expected that rc would be able to invoke the stop
> >> routines if a utility is disabled, but apparently the check for
> >> enabled/disabled occurs much too early in the rc handling
> >> functions for the stop to fire off.
> >> I could investigate further, as I am sure that it's a fairly easy
> >> fix to allow the stop functions to be invoked regardless of the
> >> enable/disable state.
> >> Does it make sense to anyone else that the rc functions should be
> >> able to shutdown a process when it has been disabled in rc.conf?
> >
> > /etc/rc.d/ntpd forcestop
>
> Indeed one could invoke that. My question is more about what 'stop'
> should or should not do.
>
> Specifically, should it 'stop' when a process has been disabled?
Consider this: all init scripts are called with stop on shutdown. If=20
stop always does something, then you'll have many init scripts trying=20
to stop processes that aren't actually running.
While this shouldn't hurt the system too much, other than slightly=20
slowing down a shutdown, it doesn't feel like clean design to me. Nor=20
would adding an rc.d-internal-stop.
forcestop is a good solution for this issue imo.
Cheers
Benjamin
--nextPart1848841.mkgRyaegMq
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQBG2H3vzZEjpyKHuQwRAkxrAKCj+ioyyFR/7V4MIgAGBiEjv4VcDgCeL0zT
wT2kraQdwID4jD76DXaWeHQ=
=LAEx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--nextPart1848841.mkgRyaegMq--