Re: [PATCH 2/2] ulogd: Implement PID file writing

[Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>]

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 10:38:14AM +0100, Chris Boot wrote:
> On 12/05/2013 10:34, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > Hi Chris,
> >
> > On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 09:11:51AM +0100, Chris Boot wrote:
> >> On 12/05/2013 01:48, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> >>> On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 09:27:31PM +0100, Chris Boot wrote:
> >>> [...]
> >>>> Hi Pablo,
> >>>>
> >>>> I'd argue exactly the opposite point: that when you want multiple
> >>>> instances a PID file can help you work out which is which.
> >>> That new option may break existing setups with multiple instances.
> >> My patch explicitly doesn't change the behaviour of existing
> >> configurations. If you don't pass '--pidfile /path/to/file.pid', no pid
> >> file is written and there is no change in how ulogd works.
> > Existing setups having already two ulogd2 instances will break, as
> > they won't be passing --pidfile, thus clashing on the same default pid
> > file. One of the instances will not proceed. They will have to add
> > --pidfile to their scripts to get things back working.
> 
> There is no default pidfile. No --pidfile option: no pidfile is created.
> No change in behaviour.
> 
> You only get the new behaviour if you explicitly add --pidfile to the
> arguments.

You're right, I overlooked that.

> > But anyway, I suggest that that the standalone debian installation
> > sticks to one single instance at the same time, that's just fine for
> > most people.
> 
> The init script is indeed sticking to just one instance as-shipped.

Assuming that, you'll have one single instance and pidof would be just
fine. But I leave final decision to Eric.