Proposed 1.0 semantics specification

[Scott James Remnant]

On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 15:20 -0400, Casey Dahlin wrote:

> > This kind of "boot essential" job has been speculated for a while, but
> > no design for it has come forwards.
> > 
> > Upstart's design does inherently mean that services may simply not be
> > started, and that's not considered an error condition.
> > 
> 
> The right way IMHO is to have a service/state called "system_normal"
> or what have you, which depends on everything that should be running
> every day. When that service is not running, there's a problem. If we
> have cron functionality and inverted dependencies, we have everything
> we need:
> 
That's certainly the simplest way to do it, though what would look to
see whether that service is running or not (to report the problem) and
how often would it check/how long after boot? :)

Scott
-- 
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen?  Are you going round the twist?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/upstart-devel/attachments/20090617/026d5b76/attachment.pgp