Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 23:50:37 -0800 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Jos Backus <jos@catnook.com> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Importing djb's public domain daemontools? Message-ID: <4F15284D.7010806@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <CAETOPp1OYqu2UuaqXdrnCGXYKq%2B=cz_DP3K%2BmHo0zprYo=kpdQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAETOPp2Wcww1_fPonru0c6XoX%2BAV_HWoGZKiEMvmY50a5%2ByxRQ@mail.gmail.com> <4F14E291.5090803@FreeBSD.org> <CAETOPp1z0TJecz8kjDvf7trEOS5eogrcqEtDveUYzN=J-SvDNQ@mail.gmail.com> <4F1502CD.90409@FreeBSD.org> <CAETOPp1OYqu2UuaqXdrnCGXYKq%2B=cz_DP3K%2BmHo0zprYo=kpdQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 01/16/2012 22:32, Jos Backus wrote: > 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), We get it, you want daemontools. It's in the ports, you can have it. > and I want a unified > control interface for the services running on a box, rc.d provides that, and service(8) makes that easier. > a la launchd or what have you. We've looked at importing launchd, or something like it. It's not a bad idea, it's just way more complex than it sounds. And a lot more work than "hey, let's import daemontools." If we were going to do something like this I think we should properly spec out what the goals should be, what the available solutions are, and what we want our ultimate solution to look like when we're done. > This isn't about religion but about missing base system > functionality - the ability to reliably control services running on a box. And my argument is that we already have that in the base, it's just not the one you want; and since it's not the one you want you're redefining "reliably" to suit your needs. > I thought the motto was "tools, not policies" ;) Right now you have options (or tools if you will). If the base were redesigned to use daemontools it would be very difficult to retain those options. > 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). If you can come up with patches to make both options possible out of the box, I'm sure that people would be interested in reviewing them. -- It's always a long day; 86400 doesn't fit into a short. Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4F15284D.7010806>