From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 17 06:32:03 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 386CA106566B; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 06:32:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jos@catnook.com) Received: from mail-iy0-f182.google.com (mail-iy0-f182.google.com [209.85.210.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED9E08FC19; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 06:32:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iagz16 with SMTP id z16so7218871iag.13 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 22:32:02 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.42.152.65 with SMTP id h1mr5108921icw.50.1326781922188; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 22:32:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.42.140.196 with HTTP; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 22:32:02 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4F1502CD.90409@FreeBSD.org> References: <4F14E291.5090803@FreeBSD.org> <4F1502CD.90409@FreeBSD.org> Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 22:32:02 -0800 Message-ID: From: Jos Backus To: Doug Barton Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: 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 06:32:03 -0000 Hi Doug, On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 9:10 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. :) > Heh :) > > > 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. > > I want/need a solution that works in (nearly) all cases and is devoid of complex code trying to track state that is already represented elsewhere in the system (the process table and the parent/child process relationship). I want a solution that can reliably handle a crashing server that doesn't clean up its pidfile (the finish script functionality in daemontools-encore provides this), and I want a unified control interface for the services running on a box, a la launchd or what have you. This isn't about religion but about missing base system functionality - the ability to reliably control services running on a box. > > 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. > I thought the motto was "tools, not policies" ;) > > 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. > Straw man. I'm asking for FreeBSD to *support* this functionality out of the box, just like OS X, Solaris, AIX and some Linux versions (with systemd). The closest FreeBSD has today is init, and it's not flexible enough to do the job. ISTR the last time I mentioned this, the debate was all about the code's license, not about the functionality. I'm glad we at least now can discuss whether this functionality belongs in the base system, as the license should no longer be an issue (it's public domain). Jos -- Jos Backus jos at catnook.com