From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general/2739 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "J. Lewis Muir" Newsgroups: gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general Subject: Re: runit patches to fix compiler warnings on RHEL 7 Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 11:57:10 -0600 Message-ID: <20191202175710.pl475v2li5xnhrho@gromit.local> References: <20191125214342.y7lx5mixrljr6s27@gromit.local> <20191127203307.ohaameqfgncm52h5@gromit.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="148524"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" Cc: supervision@list.skarnet.org To: Laurent Bercot Original-X-From: supervision-return-2328-gcsg-supervision=m.gmane.org@list.skarnet.org Mon Dec 02 18:57:27 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcsg-supervision@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from alyss.skarnet.org ([95.142.172.232]) by blaine.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ibpws-000cSP-4E for gcsg-supervision@m.gmane.org; Mon, 02 Dec 2019 18:57:26 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 30805 invoked by uid 89); 2 Dec 2019 17:57:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact supervision-help@list.skarnet.org; run by ezmlm Original-Sender: Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Original-Received: (qmail 30797 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2019 17:57:51 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=imca-cat-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=MYIClqCfWYs1JCLbyI4k45do9eCLg7PtJR3bi08NILk=; b=y84qYfat7z7rNOPLWVq8AXRX2ZKphmlm8RWagtoFkuKorIfYGPdEG+p0ACcAX6xTQP 69Dj1qzzId8FFTyALWsEEJGkRjFHDBtC2G26T74VQShdylOWXzstc5td0fmRUW2GY555 717ow853+kkMylcfaIS4iYRXEGvmE8T5xWPuytEOPY8colu343tpgGRguPM2sgqA9xcU TSt82TMwO/2eKTJM276813RtUqBJxZ+iOeQlfU21RjNuVz7OHdSnFZmcZ9Fu5mcNHAsW s2KaDycMRYVzFUj3fINOok2MKws/CQKKWhaEu7e2KM0rXBFvyJ1K3k1+Pg92nY//4wbq H+Yw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=MYIClqCfWYs1JCLbyI4k45do9eCLg7PtJR3bi08NILk=; b=SCkiF1TXicxA+8SF1R8E7iKbkuQuGarJfuhB20mCHBBadVJkg+6+QQOPogPcVzTqm0 clJqqPV5s9I94lEUFhDdpk8Vr4tiTJEZ8Vc1vmuMc2DLjVALw8oLI39ZbVsJNY/1JJmZ AFF8JNamxbrM3N3uKANZqvPFcawlXr7+iNX+2E3EtysT9eSj5QI2U8EeuD+i72dTNkX7 vpCgfqHU4Y+5YYjffm6k1xQmaS/sdYG0cyPgAIc2iH/jUmH0MJWC59RjZt3RVWHSszCn HBIHY4JlmvB6fHpK55xg/T39ZNIzRcNdKyOfcQs80oudwqbCCu0ol4l0bJ+e152U3ENT xa3Q== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWhgff5+gkyumo4nvr2KZSRYzuT0VNljUXF4Dhnf7/MGuxF+LO+ lOSGt89IWYflV7zrqXM8JMomRSo0k4s= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqykHdkVIwuP1VumhHXci45My99bZQXmQ4fQ0asiHIqe+9Ir/hwHR3+KftSvZwxlVDRGlaJoeA== X-Received: by 2002:a0d:eb88:: with SMTP id u130mr6566873ywe.326.1575309443640; Mon, 02 Dec 2019 09:57:23 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general:2739 Archived-At: On 11/28, Laurent Bercot wrote: > - This mailing-list accepts all discussions about process supervision > software. It also accepts patches to such software (but rather than cold > sending patches, please engage in a tech discussion first - it doesn't > have to be long.) OK, great! I just sent my patch series in a separate reply. I'm happy to have a tech discussion about it, and I could possibly change the patch series based on the discussion, or if it is determined that my patch series should not be accepted, I would accept that as well. > - The original author or runit is still subscribed to this list, and > comes from time to time. However, I'm not aware of an official repo for > runit, and runit's latest official version has been 2.1.2 for many a year > now. > It looks like several distributions have their own version of runit; > they are maintained by the distros themselves. > > - We on the list will gladly help with any question with runit, but to > be honest, I'm not exactly sure what to do with patch upstream requests > for runit. Is anyone processing them and integrating them into a new > release? This is unfortunate, but I understand and know that things can happen, priorities can change, time availability can change, etc. A proper upstream would be useful. A bunch of forks does not seem useful to me. The versions maintained by distros do not seem useful to me because I suspect that they would not be interested in patches related to distros or OSes other than their own. > - I host this list. I'm also the author of s6, a supervision software > suite that is very similar to runit in many ways. s6 is actively > maintained and has a public git repo, and we generally have a quick > response time with requests. > > - My opinion is that the most sustainable path forward, for runit > users who need a centrally maintained supervision software suite, is to > just switch to s6 - and it comes with several other benefits as well. OK, I'm open to that. Thanks for the suggestion! I don't need an init replacement, and I initially chose daemontools because it was the original toolset, and I wanted something that could start and stop a server process that did not daemonize itself. But the server that I wanted to manage took a while to actually become "available," and daemontools didn't support the concept of a service becoming available sometime after when it was started. That's when I found runit which did support the concept of a service becoming available with its "sv start" command and a "./check" service script. This way, I could start it and wait for it to become available before starting something else. So, if s6 can do something similar, I'd be happy to try it out! Can it? My use case is actually to run it as a systemd service, so briefly looking at https://skarnet.org/software/ I see something called sdnotify-wrapper, so maybe I should have a look at that? (It was mentioned to me off-list.) > - But again, I'm not impartial, and alternatives are a good thing. > So no matter what individual decisions are made, it would definitely be > a net positive if the exact state and workflow of runit could be > clarified, and if a real development/maintenance structure was in place. +1. Agreed. Lewis