<div> <br></div><pre>在2008-12-10，"Jonathan Billings" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote：
>Garrick Staples wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 10:08:03PM +0100, Bogdan Costescu alleged:
>>>> It doesn't matter if you think they should happen or not.
>>> Well, if such an argument is used as part of a discussion, there is
>>> no discussion anymore. End of topic for me.
>> Don't be offended.
>> I brought up 2 possible scenerios to illustrate why I don't think the upstream
>> rpms shouldn't stop daemons. You said admins shouldn't do those things. You
>> may be right, but it doesn't stop the fact that they do.
>I tend to think that not stopping the daemons when a package is upgraded
>falls under the principal of least surprise. It's probably not a
>great thing to do in production, but at least it isn't causing as much
>problems as if the daemons were shut down.
><br>Well. Would you point out the problems if we stop daemon during uninstall?<br><br> >It makes sense when a package is *removed* to shut down the daemon, but
>I think the problem we're seeing here is that the process of updating a
>package involves running the removal script for the old package, thereby
>stopping the daemon.
><br>RPM script can distinguish uninstall/update by $1. Even in rpm update, restart <br>(that means we still need stop daemon first) daemon is reasonable, because the<br>admin should want the new binaries take effect.<br><br>Thanks.<br><br>Steven Wang<br><br> >
>Jonathan Billings <email@example.com>
>The College of Language, Science, and the Arts
>LS&A IT - Research Systems and Support
>torqueusers mailing list
</pre><br><!-- footer --><br>
<font style="font-size:12px;line-height:15px;">[广告] </font><font style="font-size:12px;line-height:15px;"></font><a style="font-size:12px;line-height:15px; color:blue; text-decoration:underline;" href="http://popme.163.com/link/003985_1010_7027.html">2008年最受关注楼盘</a>