[HECnet] PyDECnet setup

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 > >