[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       busybox
Subject:    Re: [BusyBox] httpd foreground option
From:       Paul Fox <pgf () brightstareng ! com>
Date:       2004-12-18 18:43:24
Message-ID: 8928.1103395404 () brightstareng ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

you're absolutely right.  my thanks for pointing this out.  the -v
option not only keeps httpd in the foreground, it also makes it
single-threaded -- no forking.  i agree that a -f would be useful.

(and i still think -v should be in the usage.)

paul

 > No it is not, and that is not what vodz stated.
 >
 > Try it you will realise it does not behave properly and look through the
 > code you'll realise execution path are not similar.
 >
 > Jean-Marc
 >
 > -----Message d'origine-----
 > De : busybox-bounces@mail.busybox.net
 > [mailto:busybox-bounces@mail.busybox.net] De la part de Paul Fox
 > Envoyé : vendredi 17 décembre 2004 16:40
 > À : busybox@mail.codepoet.org
 > Objet : Re: [BusyBox] httpd foreground option 
 >
 >  > > I love to get my daemon running through the inittab, since they get
 > respawn
 >  > > in case of failure and I consider such behavior as optimum in term  > of
 >  > > stability.
 >
 > as vodz sort of pointed out, this behavior is already available as '-v',
 > as long as you didn't define DEBUG.  -v should be added to the usage(),
 > however.
 >
 > paul
 > =---------------------
 >  paul fox, pgf@brightstareng.com
 >

=---------------------
 paul fox, pgf@brightstareng.com


_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
busybox@mail.busybox.net
http://codepoet.org/mailman/listinfo/busybox


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]