[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: proposal: inetd improvements.
On 1275549369 seconds since the Beginning of the UNIX epoch
David Holland wrote:
> > 3. for wait services for which inetd fails to bind, it should
> > retry later as it is possible that a daemon that it HUPed
> > earlier is taking a while to exit,
>It already does; maybe just not fast enough for you. (The timeout is a
>fixed ten-minute interval, which probably isn't the right approach.)
Hmmm, I hadn't noticed it doing this. Perhaps because I always
manually take care of this sort of thing before ten minutes is up.
Might be better to reduce the time to something a little shorter,
> > 6. put in some interpolation in args so that we can tell the daemon
> > a few things.
>This is not. inetd.conf isn't a shell, it shouldn't be a shell, and if
>you want a shell script that's why we have /usr/local/libexec.
Well, I suppose that I didn't put much of an explanation in here.
But I was thinking that there may very well be pieces of information
that are derived from inetd which could be passed down to the kids.
It is conceivable, e.g., that for %: expansion, one might [optionally]
pass to a child a list of fds on which to accept each bound to a
separate IP Address. In this case, it might be nice to have a
facility to give the kids a hint as to what you are doing.
I was not thinking about running things through /bin/sh.
Roland Dowdeswell http://Imrryr.ORG/~elric/
Main Index |
Thread Index |