Re: using runit as init

[Mike Buland <mike@geekgene.com>]

yes, you're completely right.  I'm sorry.  I do overstate and come off as a 
jerk sometimes, most times, maybe...

I feel that your proposal is effectively hacking a good system for supervising 
some/most/all processes and losing all the cool extras that runit offers.  
Really, if what you want is supervising daemon processes, runit does it well, 
but the rc scripts are not compatible with that concept.  They all start 
programs that daemonize themselves, or *shudder* fork bash and use bash to 
daemonize them.

I really like runit, but I believe that there is no good option for allowing 
runit to supervise these daemons without writing runit specific (ok, 
daemontools could run most of them) scripts.  That, or maybe using the 
program group hack from daemontools (I beleive chpst can do the same thing, 
it's burried in the docs though).

The problem is the forking/daemonizing, it means that when those processes do 
that, you're no longer supervising them.  I'm willing to try and help with a 
good way of doing that, but I fear there is none, sometimes these systems 
just aren't compatible with one another.

Fortunately, I don't have one run script that's more than 4 or 5 lines, and 
most of that is whitespace :)

Sorry
--Mike

On Friday 11 January 2008 12:58:32 am Bernhard Graf wrote:
> Mike Buland wrote:
>
> It seems you simply refuse the actual point of the discussion I started:
>
> My goal is not to make runit like SysV init.
>
> My goal is to replace init by something that supervises daemon processes
> in the sense of daemontools.
>
> The discourse is about the way to that goal.
>
> And of course about shortcomings in runit / other init system / the
> daemontools concept as process 1 in general. This should be allowed
> without making someone feel defensive.