[rabbitmq-discuss] Homebrew RabbitMQ
tim at cantemo.com
Fri Sep 24 08:41:42 BST 2010
I agree, most OS X users are probably developers looking for a local solution to develop for a system which will end up deployed on another OS.
However if you want to make it a system service its not exactly a hard step to make, something which we can document, give example of the launchd scripts or whatever it needs.
On 24 Sep 2010, at 09:00, Ian Ragsdale wrote:
> On Sep 24, 2010, at 1:46 AM, David Wragg wrote:
>> Tony Garnock-Jones <tonyg at rabbitmq.com> writes:
>> But it doesn't address system services. We package rabbitmq-server to
>> run as a system service, because that's the way most people will want to
>> run it.
> I'd argue that's probably the case for a linux box, and possibly for a windows box, but I'd bet the vast majority of people running on a mac are likely to be developers writing software to be deployed elsewhere. For that use case (my own) I much prefer the homebrew experience. That said, if homebrew installed it under a rabbitmq account and required me to use sudo to do so, I certainly wouldn't mind doing so.
>> If the hoembrew policy is that you should just run everything under your
>> user account, that seems very short-sighted to me.
>> So the question is whether that would continue to be the case if the
>> homebrew formula was updated to be comparable to the macports port. The
>> macports port might be a lot more convenient to install if we cut all
>> the same corners.
> Given my experiences with both, I'd be willing to bet homebrew would still be much nicer, but I certainly understand why you guys aren't interested in investing the time to get the homebrew install up to the level of the macports install in terms of functionality. That said, it doesn't preclude you from listing it as an option on the install page, with the caveat that not everything is installed, so that people know it's an available option.
More information about the rabbitmq-discuss