On Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 10:04:02AM -0700, Zachary Denison wrote:
> I have read this and that is the reason I posted my
> question, because lifewithqmail.org says to make a
> regular init.d boot script, whereas I thought the
> point of daemontools was NOT to have an init.d boot
> script. In the daemontools FAQ, it says that init.d
> is unreliable, and alludes to there being some other
> way to install services, but doesnt really explain
> how.. In the section on 'how to install a new service'
> it really only explains how to make a symlink to an
> existing service.
>
Please don't cc me on list traffic. I'm on the list. :)
The following is just MHO:
There are two reasons one might need to follow LWQ:
1. You understand the whole process perfectly, but you'd like to
standardize on one particular install method, and LWQ is as good as any,
given that Dan's instruction's in the FAQ* don't follow best current
practice -- using softlimit, etc.
2. You don't understand the process, and you need step-by-step
instructions.
* for qmail, of course, in the distribution. The distribution has not
changed in a while, best practice has.
You seem to be of the second type (no offense meant, just trying to
clearly state it. Noone understands this stuff immediately, that takes
familiarity with the system, which you can't have until you get it
running. ;) ).
My personal recommendation -- follow LWQ to the letter. Once it's up,
and you're familiar with how everything works, decide for yourself if
you'd like to stop using init.d entirely, and rely exclusively on
daemontools (note that LWQ's instructions simply put an init.d wrapper
around daemontools anyway).
--
Greg White
