From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 17 21:33:51 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 99213106564A; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:33:51 +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 5A3BF8FC0A; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:33:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iagz16 with SMTP id z16so8803655iag.13 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 13:33:50 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.42.180.9 with SMTP id bs9mr15620348icb.0.1326836030743; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 13:33:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.42.140.196 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 13:33:50 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <4F14E291.5090803@FreeBSD.org> <4F1502CD.90409@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 13:33:50 -0800 Message-ID: From: Jos Backus To: Warner Losh Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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 21:33:51 -0000 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 > Warner -- Jos Backus jos at catnook.com