daemondo defeats purpose of launchd?

markd at macports.org markd at macports.org
Thu Sep 6 07:32:53 PDT 2007

James Berry <jberry at macports.org> writes:
>I don't see  the incompatibility of those statements, but then I again  
>I know what i meant, not necessarily what it means to others ;). The  
>later sentence, btw, is missing a word on the end. It should read:  
>"the pidfile keyword is likely useful only if the executable keyword  
>is not specified." Does that help any?
>> Looks to me like startupitem.pidfile must be set for a deamon to be
>> tracked whether it is executable startupitem or not.
>No, daemondo will track an "executable" in an case (and it doesn't  
>need to know where their pidfile is, generally, since it launches the  
>code and thus knows the pid). In the case of script code (non  
>"executable") daemondo doesn't know the pid, since it doesn't know  
>what the script code did. In this case, it has to rely on reading a  
>pidfile to get the process id, or else simply not know.
>> And the man page
>> says startupitem.pidfile is "particularly useful" for
>> startupitem.executable.  Can you explain this?
>That was either garbage to begin with, or else got messed up in  
>creation of the man page. Off the top of my head I can't see any  
>particular reason to use a pidfile keyword in conjunction with the  
>executable keyword, unless it's to specify that it should delete a  
>pidfile created by the executable, and I'm not sure that even works  
>for that case.
>Hope that helps.

It pretty well clears it all up.  I was laboring under some
misunderstandings.  Thanks a lot.  I documented it; hopefully correctly
and the regen has updated it now.  Let me know what you think.  Not sure
if you like the way I've set categories or the startupitems, but even
though they are slightly contrived, I think it helps.



More information about the macports-dev mailing list