[HECnet] PyDECnet setup

[Johnny Billquist]

kill -1 1

should be in everyones muscle memory, if they played with Unix in the 
old days...

But that's not even for inetd...

   Johnny

On 2021-11-18 18:12, Thomas DeBellis wrote:
> They do it _today_.
> 
> I can't remember what I did in 1986, honest.  Of course I've changed 
> /etc/inetd.conf when I put up new services.  And I can't for the life of 
> me remember what I did to poke a re-parse.
> 
> If it was a SIGHUP, then I probably thought that odd.  Now I'm 
> dissatisfied with the term Unix 'standards' because they are until they 
> aren't, also depending on what implementation you happen to find 
> yourself trying to execute on.  And if it needed to change, why exactly 
> did the old interface need to get ditched, really?  Now I have a bunch 
> of scripts to rewrite.  For what?
> 
> I think you can get burnt whether it's a bunch of academics eternally 
> discussing purity in committees or a couple of kids just picking something.
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> On 11/18/21 12:04 PM, Dave McGuire wrote:
>>
>>   Both Ultrix and SunOS do this in most of their major subsystems. 
>> Surely you've made changes to /etc/inetd.conf.
>>
>>            -Dave
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> On 11/18/21 12:02 PM, Thomas DeBellis wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, I don't remember Ultrix or SunOS doing this when I was one of 
>>> Columbia's Unix Systems Programmers.  However, that might mean 
>>> exactly nothing more than I don't remember and that they did do it.  
>>> I don't remember it in any daemon that I developed. Of course, I can 
>>> barely remember any daemon I developed...
>>>
>>> My dissatisfaction is not with the practice itself so much as what 
>>> winds up being called a standard and who says it is.  Until somebody 
>>> says different...
>>>
>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> On 11/18/21 11:43 AM, Dave McGuire wrote:
>>>>
>>>>   Tom, you're describing "proper 1970s UNIX fashion".  A SIGHUP to 
>>>> reload/reconfigure a running process has been standard since the 
>>>> mid/late 1980s, perhaps even earlier.
>>>>
>>>>            -Dave
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> On 11/18/21 10:50 AM, Thomas DeBellis wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The statement, "Proper Unix fashion", leaves me somewhat 
>>>>> uncomfortable.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since I'm ancient, my understanding of SIGHUP is to handle a hangup 
>>>>> detected on the controlling terminal or the death of a controlling 
>>>>> process.  A hangup started out meaning dropping carrier on a modem 
>>>>> or DTR on a hardwired line.  It came to include a broken network 
>>>>> terminal connection.
>>>>>
>>>>> When I think of how to handle a SIGHUP, I usually think of 
>>>>> 'gracefully' stopping a process (I.E., saving the user's work 
>>>>> instead of ditching it) and exiting.  If you don't do that, then 
>>>>> something else has to be used to get rid of you, perhaps a 
>>>>> SIGTERM.  The problem is that if somebody wants you gone and you 
>>>>> don't go away, you have a 9 on your hands (SIGKILL).  Now that data 
>>>>> is gone.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you usurp SIGHUP for such use, then things like NOHUP won't do 
>>>>> the expected thing.  There are certainly reasons to be NOHUP'ed.  
>>>>> In your superior breaks, you might not want to disappear so 
>>>>> somebody has a chance to attach a debugger to you to try to figure 
>>>>> out what happened.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the better thing to do would be handle a SIGUSR1/SIGUSR2 to 
>>>>> reparse.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, "proper" is a very relative term in Unix.  Things change 
>>>>> and sometimes get used for no readily apparent reason, the result 
>>>>> being that an unspoken 'standard' happens.  It is not uncommon.  
>>>>> For example, Johnny's DECnet bridge does in fact use SIGUSR1 to 
>>>>> display some information. However, it uses a SIGHUP to do a 
>>>>> reparse.  So maybe that's the best of both worlds...
>>>>>
>>>>> I've never felt strongly enough about the matter to suggest SIGUSR2 
>>>>> for a reparse, but if you want to be a purist, then it probably 
>>>>> should.
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/18/21 9:58 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In proper Unix fashion it could be triggered by a SIGHUP signal
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>

-- 
Johnny Billquist                  || "I'm on a bus
                                   ||  on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se             ||  Reading murder books
pdp is alive!                     ||  tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol