sfk1 at bigfoot.com
Wed May 7 04:49:06 PDT 2003
* Gregory Davis <gregdavis at ieee.org> wrote:
> Stefan Krah wrote:
>> * "Michael A. Peters" <mpeters at mac.com> wrote:
>>> To clarify my view on this -
>>> There is already standard facilities for stopping/starting daemons in
>>> LFS/BLFS via the sysV init mechanism.
>> Daemontools include a fabulous logging mechanism as well as other
>> *really* useful programs.
>>> By adding DJB's daemontools it adds complexity to the system because
>>> there are now more than one way that daemons are controlled. Some with
>>> SysV init and some with daemontools (and potentially some with xinetd -
>>> though I haven't found a need to install xinetd and would prefer not to
>>> for the same reason of simplicity).
>> So lets kick out sysvinit.
> Ouch, I vote against that. That's quite a digression from LFS, and now
> you're talking about making AnotherLFS instead of BeyondLFS. SysV is de
> facto how it has been done.
I was just trying to make a point: It had been suggested _not_ to use
daemontools or even kick it out of BLFS because "we already have sysvinit".
Daemontools has the same right to exist as sysvinit. There are in fact
people who run svscan as process 1.
Now, if I really wanted to kick out sysvinit I'd suggest it on lfs-dev.
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe blfs-dev' in the subject header of the message
More information about the blfs-dev