pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: PCP start/stop script regression

To: Nathan Scott <nscott@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: PCP start/stop script regression
From: Michael Newton <kimbrr@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 11:25:06 +1000
Cc: Mark Goodwin <markgw@xxxxxxx>, pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1184115849.15488.475.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1180062348.6273.575.camel@edge> <Pine.SGI.4.58.0705251335430.101649415@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1180066020.6273.593.camel@edge> <Pine.SGI.4.58.0707041636040.10924227@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1184115849.15488.475.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: pcp-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007, Nathan Scott wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-07-04 at 17:15 +1000, Michael Newton wrote:
> >
> > mail, i see ivan asked a similar qn. We should probably pursue this
> > but it
> > means a change in linuxmeister/build/init_buildsystem  -- which is
> > actually part of SuSE's build stuff. There is no current facility for
> > passing in --noscripts specifically, nor extra args in general.
>
> You may be able to override the definition of rpm itself (is it called
> via a macro?) - to be RPM="rpm --noscripts" ... hard to say without
> seeing the scripts though.

no, no macro. I suppose its possible theres an alias being set-up at some
intermediate level, but im not going looking for that.. hopefully whoever
gets to look at the PV i raised will know

> > 2 possible stopgaps:
> > * restore the fallback to killall in oss, but not mangrove
>
> If that route were taken, theres no need for pmcd.pid anymore, it should
> all just be backed out.  Not sure I'd favor that though, its painful to
> maintain a separate patch, and effectively reduces testing coverage from
> both sides of the mangrove/oss fence.

i agree

> > * have pmcd log creation of the pidfile. Only call killall if there is
> >   a log file and it does *not* show creation of the pid file.
>
> That'd probably work, I guess.  Just looking at that other patch you
> sent out now, which looks like a third option... (doesn't seem to do
> either of the above things afaict).

no.. i started out to do the above, but it evolved:)


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>