On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 12:52:45PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:

[cut]

> >
> > But I am sure that 99.9999% of the users do not need supervisors in
> > 99.9999% of the cases...
>
> I wouldn't say 99.9999%. I think everyone running wpa_supplicant can
> benefit from having it respawnable, because it crashes at the slightest
> excuse, and respawning makes it available whenever needed.
>

Sorry but if wpa_supplicant crashes for whatever reason (something
that I have never experienced so far, to be honest), then it means
that wpa_supplicant is not doing its job properly. The only way for a
program to do its job properly is by *stayng alive* not by
*crashing*.

If a program crashes while doing its job, then you don't need a
supervisor, rather a piece of software which does its job without
crashing. Crashing should not be the norm, ever. And the problem is
not solved by respawning, ever.

HND

KatolaZ

-- 
[ ~.,_  Enzo Nicosia aka KatolaZ - GLUGCT -- Freaknet Medialab  ]  
[     "+.  katolaz [at] freaknet.org --- katolaz [at] yahoo.it  ]
[       @)   http://kalos.mine.nu ---  Devuan GNU + Linux User  ]
[     @@)  http://maths.qmul.ac.uk/~vnicosia --  GPG: 0B5F062F  ] 
[ (@@@)  Twitter: @KatolaZ - skype: katolaz -- github: KatolaZ  ]