Dear list, I just stumbled over a configuration issue that I seem to remember not to be there in 3.0.20 (when I built up my configuration). The pid file name is built including a suffix specifying the configuration name. (this is done directly in pidfile_create in lib/pidfile.c) There is no need to do so because the "pid directory" lets one specify a directory to store the pid file. Furthermore, this behaviour is not documented anywhere (at least I could not find a reference yet). Last but not least, it makes control of multiple servers with one start script less straight-forward. Conclusion: I consider this behaviour as a bug. Any comments? :-) Best regards, Wolfgang
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 w.wegner@astro-kom.de wrote:> Dear list, > > I just stumbled over a configuration issue that I seem to remember > not to be there in 3.0.20 (when I built up my configuration). > > The pid file name is built including a suffix specifying the > configuration name. (this is done directly in pidfile_create in > lib/pidfile.c) > > There is no need to do so because the "pid directory" lets > one specify a directory to store the pid file. Furthermore, this > behaviour is not documented anywhere (at least I could not > find a reference yet). > Last but not least, it makes control of multiple servers with > one start script less straight-forward. > > Conclusion: I consider this behaviour as a bug.This was a patch specifically added by request IIRC. commit e8bf421c018ed829b9dba7c0872693080b77d49d Author: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org> Date: Thu Nov 2 09:37:52 2006 +0000 r19533: Add a suffix to the program name if this is a process with a non-default configuration file name. Jeremy. cheers, jerry - -- ====================================================================Samba ------- http://www.samba.org Likewise Software --------- http://www.likewisesoftware.com "What man is a man who does not make the world better?" --Balian -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFI06jsIR7qMdg1EfYRAnohAKCXNGyXhcNx1nUy9xRHWDwfDSZeyQCg33xw X+uyTJofsS4aNG6xiUUbsco=SDEz -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hi Jerry, On 19 Sep 2008 at 8:28, Gerald (Jerry) Carter wrote:> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > w.wegner@astro-kom.de wrote: > > Dear list, > > > > I just stumbled over a configuration issue that I seem to remember > > not to be there in 3.0.20 (when I built up my configuration). > > > > The pid file name is built including a suffix specifying the > > configuration name. (this is done directly in pidfile_create in > > lib/pidfile.c) > > > > There is no need to do so because the "pid directory" lets > > one specify a directory to store the pid file. Furthermore, this > > behaviour is not documented anywhere (at least I could not > > find a reference yet). > > Last but not least, it makes control of multiple servers with > > one start script less straight-forward. > > > > Conclusion: I consider this behaviour as a bug. > > This was a patch specifically added by request IIRC. > > commit e8bf421c018ed829b9dba7c0872693080b77d49d > Author: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org> > Date: Thu Nov 2 09:37:52 2006 +0000 > > r19533: Add a suffix to the program name if this is a > process with a non-default configuration file name. > Jeremy.thanks for the clarification! I did not find that reference to the change, so could not know about its history. Nevertheless I can not see why it is useful to have such an automatism here. Those who use a different config file could have a config file option, so a new config option "pid file name" would have solved the problem and cause less trouble for others, IMHO. Best regards, Wolfgang