rndc halt -p behavior

[Rich Goodson]

I think that the word "immediately" needs to stay, as that's what  
differentiates "halt" from "stop".

The documentation in its current form seems to imply that named  
returns a signal to rndc as it's exiting.

Perhaps even a simple change such as:
"If -p is specified named’s process id is returned when named begins  
its shutdown process. This gives an external process a way to  
determine when named had completed halting via the 'wait' shell built- 
in or some other method."

And here is where we realize why I don't make my living as a technical  
writer.

   -rich

On Jan 21, 2009, at 7:14 PM, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jan 2009, Rich Goodson wrote:
>
>> And I'm expected to know this, how?  (incidentally, I added a 'wait'
>> statement to my script after I discovered this behavior).  This  
>> behavior
>> does not appear to be what the documentation describes, is all I'm
>> trying to say.
>
> Just to clarify the documentation part:
>
> 	Stop the server immediately.
>
> Maybe we should just remove the "immediately" part.
>
> Any suggestions would be appreciated.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/bind-users/attachments/20090121/6b7fccc3/attachment.html>