Re: [RFC] inetd(8) changes proposal

[tlaronde%polynum.com@localhost]

Le Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 10:59:04PM +0200, Rhialto a écrit :
> On Wed 31 May 2023 at 00:18:26 +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
> >     Date:        Tue, 30 May 2023 16:11:55 +0200
> >     From:        tlaronde%polynum.com@localhost
> >     Message-ID:  <ZHYEK1XZZvZsUeyb%polynum.com@localhost>
> > 
> > 
> >   | -c	check a config file (and does not execute). Returns 0 on success and
> >   | 	ENOENT or EINVAL on error.
> > 
> > If you mean what that seems to say, then no.  The check only part is fine,
> > but functions can return ENOENT or EINVAL (or can return -1, or NULL, or
> > something with one of those in errno) - programs do not exit with those
> > values as the status (as their values aren't specified, it is possible
> > that ENOENT%256 (or ENOENT&0xFF if you prefer) == 0.
> > 
> > You can either just exit with status 1, or exit 1 for file open failed
> > (which covers a whole range of errno values, not just ENOENT), and 2
> > for invalid contents if you prefer.   But never use errno values as an
> > exit parameter.
> 
> There is <sysexits.h> which defines "Exit status codes for system
> programs." EX_DATAERR could be appropriate for an invalid config file.
> 

Thanks for the info! I didn't know about this...
-- 
        Thierry Laronde <tlaronde +AT+ polynum +dot+ com>
                     http://www.kergis.com/
                    http://kertex.kergis.com/
Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89  250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C