Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 10:29:53 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Importing djb's public domain daemontools? Message-ID: <33752E6C-E016-4C7E-92DD-97B531D185E7@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <4F152475.50503@FreeBSD.org> References: <CAETOPp2Wcww1_fPonru0c6XoX%2BAV_HWoGZKiEMvmY50a5%2ByxRQ@mail.gmail.com> <4F14E291.5090803@FreeBSD.org> <CAETOPp1z0TJecz8kjDvf7trEOS5eogrcqEtDveUYzN=J-SvDNQ@mail.gmail.com> <4F1502CD.90409@FreeBSD.org> <E4B18E7A-74A1-4388-AD79-05DD3E667DAE@bsdimp.com> <4F152475.50503@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jan 17, 2012, at 12:34 AM, Doug Barton wrote: > On 01/16/2012 23:10, Warner Losh wrote: >>=20 >> On Jan 16, 2012, at 10:10 PM, Doug Barton wrote: >>=20 >>> On 01/16/2012 19:41, Jos Backus wrote: >>>> On Jan 16, 2012 6:53 PM, "Doug Barton" <dougb@freebsd.org> >>>> wrote: >>>>>=20 >>>>> On 01/16/2012 12:53, Jos Backus wrote: >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Thoughts? >>>>>=20 >>>>> This is already available in ports. >>>>=20 >>>> I realize that. >>>=20 >>> Good, then we're done. :) >>=20 >> Not necessarily... >>=20 >>>> If FreeBSD had a solid solution out of the box, all this pidfile >>>> hackery in the base system wouldn't be necessary. >>>=20 >>> 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. >>=20 >> This isn't a religious war. >=20 > You obviously haven't spent a lot of time dealing with djb'ites. Your > warning sign should have been "messy and unreliable pidfile concept" > from the OP, or "pidfile hackery" above. I have spent time with djb-ites in other areas. I tend to ignore their = ranker and focus on the technical issues. I've had issues with pidfiles = and such in the past. There are a lot of hacks to get around those = issues, and things mostly work. If there's a good alternative that can = be demonstrated to work and gain us additional functionality, I'm all = for it. I've fought with init() to make it keep important daemons = around should they die. I've worked with other systems that make it = easy to do and miss that on FreeBSD. It is possible, but not easy. If = daemontools makes it easy, we should evaluate it. >> 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 >=20 > That's not even close to an accurate description of what this project > would entail. Have you ever used daemontools? I haven't. However, without a fully formed set of patches to test and = evaluate technically, it is hard to know if this is a good idea or a bad = idea. >> 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.=20 >=20 > One would hope that it would take more than just your support to > entirely change the way that we start and manage services in FreeBSD. >=20 > Also, see my followup to Jos' subsequent post. And one would hope your pig-headdednes also doesn't keep it out of = FreeBSD. Neither you nor I are the final arbiter of what's good for = FreeBSD. Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?33752E6C-E016-4C7E-92DD-97B531D185E7>