Re: Daemontools
Hi,
> i like daemontools (as do most people who have used it) and run it
> everywhere. it would certainly be good if it could be included in a
> package, provided that package was set up nicely, so it's good to see some
> discussion about it.
I am already running a lot of selfmade daemontools packages some months
(proftpd, apache, qmail, squid, ssh, snmp, syslog, klogd, mysql, dhcp,
djbdns) and they are all working fine. It is pretty easy to package
daemontools software. If you remove the package the prerm can successfully
shutdown the service and remove it from svscans service-list. And now that I
know that I can simply divert the original init-script or the binary the
original init.d-start/stop mechanism can be easily reenabled if you remove a
daemontools-wrapper-package.
My intention is to upload those already made packages (after I have cleaned
them up) to Debian. But there are still two questions where I'm glad to hear
some statements:
1. Is it OK to name these wrapper-packages like prodftpd-sv, apache-sv and so
on? Any better ideas?
2. Shall I divert the original init.d-script to prevent that the init.d
mechanims starts the service or shall I divert the daemon binary to do this?
I am tending to divert the binary and run this diverted binary from the
run-scripts (proftpd.real)
(3). This question just came up now: Is there any standardized way how to
name the diverted binary? Can I name it proftpd.sv instead of proftpd.real?
In that way a user can easily see, that the service is not intended to be run
manually, because it's supervised.
--
Bye
K
Reply to: