Added signal to have runsvdir wait

Added signal to have runsvdir wait

[Yanko]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 303 bytes --]

Hello,

I was wondering if there was any interest in having runsvdir wait? Similar to the HUP behavior but blocking.

I added another exit case that handles USR1, and waits for runsv(s) to finish. See patch attached. (I'm not a fluent C programmer, so not sure if I'm missing something).

Thanks!

Yanko

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 621 bytes --]

Re: Added signal to have runsvdir wait

[Yanko]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 567 bytes --]

I guess attachments don't go through, here is a link:
https://gist.github.com/rem7/241cd941c6afe0a37080770ceb0803cb

Yanko

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Monday, November 5, 2018 10:19 PM, Yanko <y@rem7.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I was wondering if there was any interest in having runsvdir wait? Similar to the HUP behavior but blocking.
>
> I added another exit case that handles USR1, and waits for runsv(s) to finish. See patch attached. (I'm not a fluent C programmer, so not sure if I'm missing something).
>
> Thanks!
>
> Yanko

Re: Added signal to have runsvdir wait

[Colin Booth]

On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 06:19:33AM +0000, Yanko wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I was wondering if there was any interest in having runsvdir wait?
> Similar to the HUP behavior but blocking.
Sorru, I missed this email. I believe the lack of interest is that the
official daemontools method for dealing with blocking on exit was to
have your caller bring everything down, then signal the scanner to bail.
Or in the case of systemic shutdown, term everything and then wait for
each supervisor to exit independently.

Additionally, runit is considered finished software by the author, so
if it solves a problem for you great! But don't expect it to get
upstreamed.

If you have the flexibility to change supervisors, I'd suggest switching
to s6. It already supports blocking shutdowns via the signal redirection
mechanism, and has a richer support tooling ecosystem.
> 
> I added another exit case that handles USR1, and waits for runsv(s) to
> finish. See patch attached. (I'm not a fluent C programmer, so not
> sure if I'm missing something).
Like I said earlier, if it works for you that's awesome, but I think the
runit community has alreaey built toolimg around handling the standard
(albiet annoying) runit mechanisms.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Yanko
Cheere!

-- 
Colin Booth