Re: runsv and process groups

[Gerrit Pape <pape@smarden.org>]

On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 01:05:13PM -0400, Charlie Brady wrote:
> On 26 Aug 2004, Clemens Fischer wrote:
> > > it be easier for (nearly) everyone if runsv did it?
> > for me this is about choice,
> I don't see how your freedom would be curtailed if runsv's behaviour was a 
> little different.
Once setsid() is called there's no way back.

> > but you certainly have a point.  AFAIC i prefer the current way and
> > advice in the runsv(8) documentation to add the "chpst -P ..." bit for
> > the "default case".
> The runsv documentation doesn't currently have advice to use "chpst -P
> ..." in run scripts, and very few of the publicly available run scripts
> add that "safety belt". IIUC, your suggestion is that that documentation
> is added. Mine is that the bahviour of runsv is changed - I don't accept 
> that your proposed scenario is a real-world case, but if it is, I expect 
> you can find a simple solution which suits your needs. And if not, then 
> you could revert the proposed change in the source code.

> I'm still curious about Gerrit's opinion. Is there a good reason why runsv 
> doesn't put each run script in a new process group? [Other than the 
> obvious reason that that would be different behavior to daemontools].

Hm, I'm not sure yet.  What do you think about runsvdir running runsv in
a new process group, and not runsv the run script?

Regards, Gerrit.