| 1 |
On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 14:40 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 14:08 -0400, Eric Brown wrote: |
| 3 |
> > My point is that Snort and Apache are not alone in this, so I suppose |
| 4 |
> > quite a few upstream developers just disagree with us on what proper |
| 5 |
> > initialization means. Why should our users suffer? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> They shouldn't, but that doesn't mean implementing some half-baked hack |
| 8 |
> to resolve the situation. It might be better to instead patch the |
| 9 |
> daemon in question and send the patches upstream. Upstream developers |
| 10 |
> (usually) are much more willing to make changes when you've done the |
| 11 |
> work for them... ;] |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I know Roy already did the sleep check in rc-services.sh which is small, |
| 15 |
and I think fairly acceptable, but like Mike said, you cannot make it |
| 16 |
longer and then do it for all, as some arches is just too slow, and I'm |
| 17 |
going to guess we have a less than 10% of services with this issue? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Personally I think the issue should be taken on a per-package basis, and |
| 20 |
if somebody sees an issue, open a bug against snort/apache/whatever to |
| 21 |
do a timeout, and then check some or other way if its actually started. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
For the developer awareness issue ... its not always such an open/shut |
| 24 |
case. I can't remember what had this issue, but some daemon only |
| 25 |
displayed this issues with slower boxes, and not the faster ones, so it |
| 26 |
really will totally depend on what type of hardware the developer have |
| 27 |
or not. So yeah, better awareness by adding a section to the developer |
| 28 |
manual or something to the test for new developers might help, but not |
| 29 |
fool proof. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Martin Schlemmer |
Archives