From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 17 22:07:32 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 1EA8D106566C; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 22:07:32 +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 CFC638FC12; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 22:07:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-iy0-f182.google.com with SMTP id z16so8852567iag.13 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 14:07:31 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.42.152.65 with SMTP id h1mr7848075icw.50.1326838051595; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 14:07:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.42.140.196 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 14:07:31 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <4F14E291.5090803@FreeBSD.org> <4F1502CD.90409@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 14:07:31 -0800 Message-ID: From: Jos Backus To: Ivo Vachkov 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 22:07:32 -0000 On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Ivo Vachkov wrote: > > > 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. > If people feel that's the right thing to talk about first, by all means, sure. Jos > > > >> > 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 > -- Jos Backus jos at catnook.com