From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general/565 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Gerrit Pape Newsgroups: gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general Subject: Re: runsv and process groups Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 20:48:13 +0000 Message-ID: <20040826204817.1893.qmail@a4750aef5ce996.315fe32.mid.smarden.org> References: <6575lv98.fsf@ID-23066.news.dfncis.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1093553285 9437 80.91.224.253 (26 Aug 2004 20:48:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 20:48:05 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: supervision-return-803-gcsg-supervision=m.gmane.org@list.skarnet.org Thu Aug 26 22:47:57 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from antah.skarnet.org ([212.85.147.14]) by deer.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1C0RA4-0005J3-00 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2004 22:47:56 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 5604 invoked by uid 76); 26 Aug 2004 20:48:17 -0000 Mailing-List: contact supervision-help@list.skarnet.org; run by ezmlm List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: Original-Received: (qmail 5599 invoked from network); 26 Aug 2004 20:48:17 -0000 Original-To: supervision@list.skarnet.org Mail-Followup-To: supervision@list.skarnet.org Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general:565 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general:565 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.