Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 18:17:40 -0800 From: Jos Backus <jos@catnook.com> To: Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Importing djb's public domain daemontools? Message-ID: <CAETOPp08o0uPZ8XUF379EFueTQ1D%2BLw8u8ZHSz7jjrfzoQhZXA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20120118015720.GA17409@sandvine.com> References: <CAETOPp1z0TJecz8kjDvf7trEOS5eogrcqEtDveUYzN=J-SvDNQ@mail.gmail.com> <4F1502CD.90409@FreeBSD.org> <E4B18E7A-74A1-4388-AD79-05DD3E667DAE@bsdimp.com> <4F152475.50503@FreeBSD.org> <33752E6C-E016-4C7E-92DD-97B531D185E7@bsdimp.com> <4F15BB21.50905@freebsd.org> <CAGE5yCp11A8f0RQMxPjJ0p774EjfbRi6P%2BbQZ=WVpbncEmwyjQ@mail.gmail.com> <20120117201807.GJ4729@azathoth.lan> <CAGMYy3tj3Rfftyo1tx7uqQ4Pa2iwZFgn7VhUWsqfL01eQf0siQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAETOPp0jCoovyCRH%2BHqHp8U02m8b-1M7oJ4R=b64RK2Az6ZoCw@mail.gmail.com> <20120118015720.GA17409@sandvine.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 01:29:52PM -0800, Jos Backus wrote: > > > How much work would this be, you think? Doesn't launchd rely on some > kernel > > functionality that FreeBSD doesn't have? Maybe I misremember. > > Are you perhaps thinking of systemd, which does use a whole bunch of > Linux-specific features? > Probably :) I guess part of the launchd porting effort was removing stuff that FreeBSD doesn't support out of the box, such as zeroconf/Bonjour. > There was a GSoC project to port launchd in the past; I have no idea > how much it has changed since then. > > http://wiki.freebsd.org/launchd I found the wiki and the Perforce soc2005 branch on perforce.freebsd.org, as well as the official launchd Subversion repo at http://launchd.macosforge.org. There's also https://github.com/rtyler/launchd-for-freebsd which seems to based on the Subversion repo but at an older revision. Only the Perforce branch seems to have any FreeBSD build glue. I guess a plan would be to port the changes made to Subversion trunk since the Perforce snapshot was taken to the Perforce branch. It looks like launchd hasn't changed in several years. After looking at the launchd code for a little bit, it looks much more complicated than daemontools, which in turn worries me in terms of its expected robustness. One of the nice properties of daemontools is that the individual pieces are fairly small and have been proven in the field to work well. Specifically, I'm worried that it will be harder to create a quality port of launchd compared to daemontools, and as Warner has hinted at, the port needs to work well for it to be accepted. It seems to me that a working port of daemontools is easier to achieve because the code is (much) simpler. Hence the chances of a solution to be accepted seem higher when using daemontools as a base. But maybe I'm overestimating the amount of work needed to get launchd into good enough shape to be committed. Jos > > -Ed > -- Jos Backus jos at catnook.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAETOPp08o0uPZ8XUF379EFueTQ1D%2BLw8u8ZHSz7jjrfzoQhZXA>