Re: service definition vs service activation

[Alex Efros <powerman@powerman.asdfGroup.com>]

Hi!

On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 11:13:38AM -0800, Wayne Marshall wrote:
> On the other hand here has been no usual custom or consensus for the
> service definition directory.  This is because services combine
> attributes of things usually found elsewhere, such
> as /etc, /etc/init.d, /var/run, and /var/log.  Service definitions by
> their very nature don't exactly fit cleanly anywhere in the usual unix
> hier(7) scheme of things.

I'm mostly agree with your, but there exists two more alternatives:


1)  Service definition directory can use symlinks to suit FHS:
	/etc/sv/SERVICE/supervise     -> /var/run/sv/SERVICE/
	/etc/sv/SERVICE/log/supervise -> /var/run/sv/SERVICE/log/
    and ./log/run can start svlogd with /var/log/SERVICE/ as param.
    
    That way /etc/ will contain only static configuration files, while
    logs and ./supervise/ dir will be on /var/.
    Service activation directory is /var/service/ or /var/sv/.

    I've tried this way, and found myself always forget to create
    ./supervise symlinks BEFORE I start new service and runsv will create
    ./supervise directories instead. This can be easy solved by using
    script to create service directories, of course.

    Ugly, but suit FHS.


2)  DJB invented nice place where to create directories which is not suit FHS.
    In root. ;-) From this view, /sv/ or /service/ would be nice place for
    service definition directory, while /var/sv/ or /var/service/ is
    service activation directory.


P.S. I use /service/ as service definition directory, /var/service/ as service
activation directory, and ./log/run start svlogd with /var/log/SERVICE/ param.  

-- 
			WBR, Alex.