Importing djb's public domain daemontools?

[Jos Backus]

On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Ivo Vachkov <ivo.vachkov at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 11:33 PM, Jos Backus <jos at catnook.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
> Wouldn't it be more logical to first:
> 1) Define what a modern start/boot/service control system should do?
> 2) Define technological and architectural constraints?
> ... and only then jump to "port *this*" kind of discussions ...
>
> I know of at least one successful commercial project to port launchd on
> FreeBSD (6.x and 7.x), but still there are also others: initNG, eINIT,
> Upstart, Service Management Facility, etc.
>
> I don't want to start another flamewar here, i'm aware of license issues,
> dead code, commercial issues and so on, I just want to point out that there
> are other options and IMHO the focus should not be on what to port, but
> what to develop that suits our needs.
>

If people feel that's the right thing to talk about first, by all means,
sure.

Jos


>
>
>
>> > Warner
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jos Backus
>> jos at catnook.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> freebsd-arch at freebsd.org mailing list
>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Ivo Vachkov
>



-- 
Jos Backus
jos at catnook.com