dj at linuxfromscratch.org
Tue Aug 9 20:02:16 PDT 2005
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> DJ Lucas wrote these words on 08/09/05 21:12 CST:
>>Okay, does the spamd script that you use set PIDFILE?
> Because I'm the one that started this thread by reporting what I
> felt was an error in the functions, I am curious if anyone else has
> seen the issue I see. I would hate the DJ is fighting something that
> really doesn't exist.
> What I am seeing using the bootscripts specified in the LFS and BLFS
> SVN book is behavior that when a BLFS bootscript is called with the
> 'status' parameter, and the referenced daemon is known not to be
> running, the script returns that it *is* running with a PID that
> doesn't exist.
> Earlier today I killed the syslog daemons and ran the script with
> the 'status' parameter and things reported correctly. However, with
> BLFS bootscripts using /usr/sbin/daemonname, things don't report the
> Let's make sure there is really an issue here. DJ, if I can help
> to ensure there is really an issue, let me know what I need to do.
I can not believe I did that...again!!! No. It's definately a problem
with the handling of pidofproc as demonstrated by the test changes to
-status in any bootscript. The patches that I had submitted earlier
were so stupidly broken...grr! Anyway, in the last one, I completely
destroyed loadproc and killproc opperation. The solution, as is usually
the case, should have been very easy, but I overcomplicated the previous
patch. I've a little more testing to do before I send a partially
tested patch to list again. Handling of -p $pidfile must still be
tested yet for the latest (much easier) change, but definately don't use
the previous patches. Sorry for any inconvience...I should have it
-- DJ Lucas
More information about the lfs-dev