Hi!

> "Hallgrimur H. Gunnarsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I'd like to propose a new USE flag.
>>
>> On my systems I've added a 'daemontools' USE flag
>> as an alternative to the current init.d for
>> service management. To be a true metadistribution,
>> it doesn't seem fair to let init.d have a monopoly
>> on providing service management for packages.
>
> I second this idea.
>
> But if I understand
> http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/faq.xml#doc_chap8_sect1
> correctly former gentoo distris used daemontools so
> I would like to know why gentoo switched away from
> this really good and stable piece of software.

Daemontools does not provide for multiple runlevels. With init.d you may 
"init 2" to switch to a running multiuser system without network. "init 
3", "4" or "5" will bring up the "default" runlevel (have a look at 
"/etc/inittab" on how this is done).

Mr. D.J. Bernstein now, unfortunately, isn't very helpful, making such --- 
requested --- changes as allowing for more than one runlevel for 
daemontools.

In his, understandable opinion, this would make daemontools more 
complicated, and given by means:
[...] there are only two types of programs:
  1. Those being simple, all error are obviously seen, and
  2. those being complex enough errors are not obvious.

(BTW: whom does this cite belong to? Anyone out there who knows?)

Mr. Bernstein wants to keep his code as close as possible to point 1 --- 
even if this means ignoring wishes of a majority of people.

In my opinion daemontools has the power of replacing "/etc/init.d" scripts 
completely, but only if adding some functionality. One of these is having 
more than one runlevel available. An other point is the license Mr. 
Bernstein provides. Without these most sysadmins and programmers will 
further ignore them.

Just start out reading "http://cr.yp.to/djb.html"; and read the license provided with 
daemontools. It could be a good idea 
to read the dispute about changing from daemontools to the actual init.d 
system in the archives of "gentoo-users".

-- 
Thomas


--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Reply via email to