[RFC] stopsignal stanza

[Marc - A. Dahlhaus]

Am 02.05.2011 19:58, schrieb Scott James Remnant:
--8<--
>     Talked about the topic with SpamapS on irc and he suggested that we
>     choos another stanza for it as there is a bug open for sending another
>     signal than HUP on reload...
> 
>     Maybe we better use "signal {stop,reload} SIGNAL" for it?!
> 
> I would prefer:
> 
>   kill signal HUP
> 
> since that goes better with timeout, etc. There should already be the
> code to translate signal names (normal exit uses it)

Nice. For the messages that now mention "sending TERM signal", we need a
intval to signalname translation, is there one in nih?

>     The odd thing is that we have to change the way the reload works than as
>     initctl has to inform upstart about the reload and upstart hat to send
>     the configured signal or HUP by default to the job then...
> 
> Ignore the reload issue for now, eventually I suspect we'll add "signal"
> as an alternative to "exec" and "script" so that:
> 
>   reload signal HUP
>   reload exec ...
>   reload script ...
>   end script
> 
> Would all be valid expressions. In which case "kill signal" would be
> entirely appropriate.

Makes perfect sense.

> 
>     Then we could also rename the system_kill function to system_signal_send
>     and reuse it for the reloading also...

That renaming ok for you?

>     The reload handling through upstart itself would be a matter of weeks
>     for me as i'm not that familiar with the interprocess communication used
>     by initctl and upstart (it's handled via dbus right?)...
> 
>     Maybe you or someone more familiar from the ubuntu/canonical folks can
>     take over that part? ;)
> 
> Yeah, I wouldn't worry about it for now.
> 
> Scott

Marc