From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 17 22:26:22 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BC291065680; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 22:26:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ivo.vachkov@gmail.com) Received: from mail-qy0-f182.google.com (mail-qy0-f182.google.com [209.85.216.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B17198FC1F; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 22:26:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: by qcse1 with SMTP id e1so2056638qcs.13 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 14:26:21 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=HHfYsAgPOVQts6gW77f/hTqUM8A3jMzcBedboFJqs6k=; b=DrJOkw5vTGxdCpR7ihspcSQemsjjFAu/BKCPb3nxuNpt9P4YkaFp6A2RFqPoR4DHlB llhfmKlUisSGG8F66cazwu5Tkpm26bu6AbuGsQly5hPmSrRabLtiga4UB7Q1K608ElR4 YIo96wJP5Ct1vJ8aeWmI/R6eFwaplvZAQylHg= Received: by 10.229.78.145 with SMTP id l17mr7119600qck.141.1326837426186; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 13:57:06 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.47.85 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 13:56:45 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <4F14E291.5090803@FreeBSD.org> <4F1502CD.90409@FreeBSD.org> From: Ivo Vachkov Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 23:56:45 +0200 Message-ID: To: Jos Backus Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: Doug Barton , freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Importing djb's public domain daemontools? X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 22:26:22 -0000 On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 11:33 PM, Jos Backus wrote: > On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 11:10 PM, Warner Losh 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" 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. > > Warner > > > > > -- > Jos Backus > jos at catnook.com > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-arch@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > -- Ivo Vachkov