Re: [Fedora-packaging] "gconfd-2: no process killed" messages

[Ville Skyttä <ville skytta iki fi>]

On Monday 24 September 2007, Michel Salim wrote:
> On 22/09/2007, Ville Skyttä <ville skytta iki fi> wrote:
> > On Saturday 22 September 2007, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> > > +  g_spawn_command_line_sync ("/usr/bin/killall -q -TERM "
> > > GCONF_SERVERDIR "/" GCONFD, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL);
> >
> > Hm, ScriptletSnippets advices to use -HUP; is -TERM instead of it
> > intentional?
>
> The next time an application uses GConf, the daemon is automatically
> respawned anyway, right?

I don't know, that's why I asked ;)

> So there should be no difference between -HUP and -TERM.

Actually, if the behaviour you described is how it works, -TERM may be a 
better idea than -HUP performance-wise - no need to repeatedly re-read things 
eg. during a rpm transaction which installs many packages that have something 
to do with GConf.