From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu May 22 05:03:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id FAA17231 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 22 May 1997 05:03:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nemeton.com.au ([203.8.3.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA17224 for ; Thu, 22 May 1997 05:02:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from topaz.nemeton.com.au (topaz.nemeton.com.au [203.8.3.18]) by nemeton.com.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA20653; Thu, 22 May 1997 22:02:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost.nemeton.com.au (localhost.nemeton.com.au [127.0.0.1]) by topaz.nemeton.com.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA00252; Thu, 22 May 1997 22:09:13 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199705221209.WAA00252@topaz.nemeton.com.au> To: Stephen McKay cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: process monitoring tool (like SysV init)? In-reply-to: <199705220518.PAA07067@ogre.dtir.qld.gov.au> Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 22:09:12 +1000 From: Giles Lean Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Thu, 22 May 1997 15:18:18 +1000 Stephen McKay wrote: > I like the idea of a nanny type program, but can't decide whether it should > be merged with init, much like System V, or kept separate like inetd. Keep it separate. I built it in once, and tossed the code: - runlevels and monitoring processes aren't the same thing - complexity is nasty: o you keep /etc/ttys o you don't keep /etc/ttys o people are confused either way - runlevels o you leave them out o you put them in (Solaris model) o you put them in (HP-UX model o you put them in (some other model) o people are confused no matter what - if you do runlevels, where do you store them? o 4.4BSD has read only root at single user o kernel variable is ugly and inappropriate Just write a nanny process, call it nanny or spawnd or a.out but *not* init and get on with life. :-) Giles