Re: service definition vs service activation

[Joshua N Pritikin <jpritikin@pobox.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1512 bytes --]

One further thought--

Wayne Marshall wrote:
> For the purposes of consistency and making an explicit distinction
> between definition and activation, my installations and documentation
> are now standardized on the use of /var/service.d as the service
> definition directory for all runit services. Then /var/service
> continues its role as the primary service activation directory. 

This choice is madness since the two directories are so similarly named.
Is there any reason not to use /etc/ for the activation directory?
That's essentially what sysvinit does.

I suggest /etc/sv as the activation directory (and perhaps "single" or 
sv1 for single user mode) and somewhere under /var as the definition
directory.  Note that there may be various different definition
directories.  For example,

/var/runit-services/ssh
/var/runit-services/xdm
/var/runit-services/...etc...

/var/runit/local/remote-password-reset   # site specific

Hrm .. so I propose /var/runit as the definition tree.  There could be
various subdirectories for better organization.  For example, bcron
needs three services so:

/var/runit/bcron/sched
/var/runit/bcron/spool
/var/runit/bcron/update

This is an improvement on the current naming.  And socklog fits into
this scheme as well:

/var/runit/socklog/unix
/var/runit/socklog/klog
/var/runit/socklog/inet
/var/runit/socklog/ucspi-tcp

Now, does everybody hate this idea?  ;-)

-- 
Make April 15 just another day, visit http://fairtax.org

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]