From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general/1199
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Gerrit Pape <pape@smarden.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general
Subject: Re: Should svwaitup/down be built again, or how to make sv do this?
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 15:20:13 +0000
Message-ID: <20060712152013.7834.qmail@01ba84912064b9.315fe32.mid.smarden.org>
References: <200607112100.08660.spamite@ev1.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1152717639 12848 80.91.229.2 (12 Jul 2006 15:20:39 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 15:20:39 +0000 (UTC)
Original-X-From: supervision-return-1435-gcsg-supervision=m.gmane.org@list.skarnet.org Wed Jul 12 17:20:36 2006
Return-path: <supervision-return-1435-gcsg-supervision=m.gmane.org@list.skarnet.org>
Envelope-to: gcsg-supervision@gmane.org
Original-Received: from antah.skarnet.org ([212.85.147.14])
	by ciao.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1G0gVF-0006Lu-4s
	for gcsg-supervision@gmane.org; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 17:19:53 +0200
Original-Received: (qmail 3476 invoked by uid 76); 12 Jul 2006 15:20:14 -0000
Mailing-List: contact supervision-help@list.skarnet.org; run by ezmlm
List-Post: <mailto:supervision@list.skarnet.org>
List-Help: <mailto:supervision-help@list.skarnet.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:supervision-unsubscribe@list.skarnet.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:supervision-subscribe@list.skarnet.org>
List-Archive: <http://www.skarnet.org/lists/>
Original-Received: (qmail 3467 invoked from network); 12 Jul 2006 15:20:14 -0000
Original-To: supervision@list.skarnet.org
Mail-Followup-To: supervision@list.skarnet.org
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200607112100.08660.spamite@ev1.net>
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general:1199
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general/1199>

On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 08:59:45PM -0500, Kevin wrote:
> We have some services that have come to depend on behavior of 
> svwaitup/svwaitdown to work.  As these are no longer built since 
> runit-1.4.0, we're starting to face a problem, since we use the Debian 
> packaged version:
> 
> sv -w 1000000 -v check <service> seems to return immediately.  We have no 
> way to indefinitely block a service from starting without replacing this 
> functionality with extra code that used to already exist, to our 
> knowledge.
> 
> Are we missing something?

I'm not sure what exactly you used the svwait* programs for, so I cannot
say whether or how it works with 'sv check/start/stop'.

Regards, Gerrit.