[rabbitmq-discuss] Homebrew RabbitMQ
jon at jbrisbin.com
Fri Sep 24 14:12:46 BST 2010
+1 on Mac users deploying to other OSes.
It's sometimes a pain to run rabbitmq on a Mac as a service. It's convenient and all, but if I need to restart the server a lot, I'll just run the rabbitmq-server command (without sudo ;) in a terminal. I don't like to have stuff running when I'm not using it, so I don't always rely on background services. I also like seeing any stdout output without having to tail a log file.
IMHO I wouldn't plant a flag on Mac users needing a dedicated user for the broker and I'd also make it simple to optionally install the launchd service. I might not want to run it as a background service.
On Sep 24, 2010, at 2:41 AM, Tim Child wrote:
> 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.
> rabbitmq-discuss mailing list
> rabbitmq-discuss at lists.rabbitmq.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the rabbitmq-discuss