Re: Bug#922353: ITP: socket-activate -- Run a socket-activated daemon with minimal dependencies
- Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 15:32:46 +0100
- From: Guillem Jover <guillem@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Bug#922353: ITP: socket-activate -- Run a socket-activated daemon with minimal dependencies
On Fri, 2019-02-15 at 10:46:43 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> Control: clone 922353 -2
> Control: reassign -2 dpkg
> Control: retitle -2 start-stop-daemon should support socket-activation via the sd_listen_fds(3) convention
> Control: severity -2 wishlist
> On Fri 2019-02-15 04:34:47 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > Another option would be to implement this in start-stop-daemon, like
> > the similar support for the systemd readiness protocol was recently
> > implemented there too.
> Thanks for the suggestion! How widely-distributed is start-stop-daemon
> outside of debian? I see it's been ported to OpenBSD; are they
> syncing from upstream?
<https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Dpkg/Downstream>. For the BSDs to use
this more seriously the code would probably need to be split into its
own project, so that it does not pollute their licensing. Its current
"license" might also need to be clarified (PD), and "relicensed" into
MIT or similar.
This is something I've actually pondered doing anyway, so this might
be a good excuse, I guess.
> The code i have is just python3 right now (simple argument parsing made
> development much quicker), but it's not too terrible to do it in C.
Yes, and it should be pretty generic and portable.
> I'm opening this as a wishlist issue for dpkg just so we don't lose
> track of it, since it might take me some cycles to get the C
> implementation in shape. If anyone else wants to beat me to it, i
> certainly wouldn't complain :)
I'll probably look into it once I've gone over some of the immediate
stuff I have on my plate, if there's been no patch submitted by then.