Re: daemon without pcntl_fork

2009/8/18 Per Jessen <per@computer.org>: > Lars Torben Wilson wrote: > >> Again, that's not a daemon. If it is sufficient to run a background >> process then that's fine, but that doesn't make it a daemon (although >> it shares some things in common with a daemon). The background process >> still has a controlling terminal (even if input and output have been >> redirected), and a fully-implemented daemon will typically perform >> other tasks which make it a good system citizen, such as: becoming >> session leader, chroot'ing to / so that the filesystem it was started >> from can be unmounted if necessary, and so on. > > Torben, you're really just splitting hairs - the OP didn't ask for the > definition of "daemon', he just wanted a script to run continually as > if it was a daemon.  Besides, I did also suggest using either setsid or > openSUSEs startproc. Thank you for the lecture. Your opinion of my post on this is quite beside the point. If Jim needs a daemon, then he should probably use a daemon coded the best way possible. If not, then that's fine too. As you correctly pointed out, there are ways to fake it. I simply feel that Jim should be made aware of potential drawbacks. That's perhaps splitting hairs--it's also being thorough. Clients don't tend to appreciate being told that a lack of thoroughness arose from a fear of splitting hairs. Regards, Torben