Importing djb's public domain daemontools?

[Jos Backus]

On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 11:10 PM, Warner Losh <imp at bsdimp.com> wrote:

>
> On Jan 16, 2012, at 10:10 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
>
> > On 01/16/2012 19:41, Jos Backus wrote:
> >> On Jan 16, 2012 6:53 PM, "Doug Barton" <dougb at freebsd.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 01/16/2012 12:53, Jos Backus wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Thoughts?
> >>>
> >>> This is already available in ports.
> >>
> >> I realize that.
> >
> > Good, then we're done. :)
>
> Not necessarily...
>
> >> If FreeBSD had a solid solution out of the box, all this pidfile
> hackery in
> >> the base system wouldn't be necessary.
> >
> > We don't do religious wars here. We especially don't do trollbait from
> > djb acolytes. The "pidfile hackery" that we currently have works just
> > fine in the vast majority of cases. The fact that it doesn't meet some
> > people's ideas of architectural purity is totally beside the point.
>
> This isn't a religious war.  This is someone coming to us and saying that
> it might be a good idea to clean up the mess by importing a tiny bit of
> extra code into the base.  Seems like how we've always done things :)
>
> >> I always thought FreeBSD was about
> >> good engineering. Perpetuating the pidfile mess in the base is not a
> sign
> >> of good engineering.
> >
> > FreeBSD is about giving people choices. Those who want to use
> > daemontools can do that.
> >
> > And lest people think that I'm just hating on daemontools, I'm not. I
> > use it for some things. But converting everything in the base to use it
> > is a non-starter, even if we wanted to import it, which I don't see any
> > need to do.
>
> I'm not convinced it is a non-starter.  I'd fully support Jos if he wanted
> to commit the code and had done the leg work to do it.  I wouldn't support
> just importing the daemontools and leaving it at that.  If that's the plan,
> then leaving it in ports is the best bet.
>
> Let's not dismiss this out of hand.
>

Thanks, Warner.

I'm perfectly willing  to make an effort moving FreeBSD forward in this
area once we can achieve consensus on what moving forward means. I don't
care about the implementation so much as having the functionality available
out of the box. Porting launchd sounds like a good plan.

Jos


> Warner




-- 
Jos Backus
jos at catnook.com