Forum OpenACS Q&A: Re: Easier to install

17: Re: Easier to install (response to 16)
Posted by Patrick Giagnocavo on
Why don't we just write something in plain old TCL?  There will always be a tclsh installed where AOLserver is to be found.
18: Re: Easier to install (response to 17)
Posted by Bart Teeuwisse on


Why DIY when there are very good alternatives available?

Talli, granted runit's BSD license allows developers to install runit in a LSB compliant fashion. I'm with you that runit might capture market share from daemontools in the long run because of its license.

At the moment though, daemontools has the edge. It has been around longer and is integrated with more Linux distributions (e.g. Debian, Gentoo).

And yes, DJB's license is restrictive. It restricts redistribution of binaries to his LSB incompatible specifications. However, you are allowed to create patches to the source, patches that compile DJB's source code but install the resulting binaries compliant with the LSB standard. Source based Linux distributions like Gentoo can do this. Debian too doesn't distribute daemontools binaries directly, instead there is package to compile and install daemontools.

So there are ways to respect DJB's permissions and be LSB compliant but it is PITA. For now neither daemontools nor runit is included in major Linux distributions. Daemontools RPMs can be obtained if you don't mind that the package isn't LSB compliant. The runit RPMs that I could find are geared towards Mandrake and SuSe, the RPMs for RedHat were for old(er) RedHat versions.

What to do? Continue to depend on Daemontools and make a non LSB compliant binary RPMs available? Or switch to runit and make LSB compliant binary RPMs available? The latter would hopefully make it into standard Linux distributions in the mid to long term.

the Code Mill