On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 12:11:38 -0600, Mike Buland <xagafinelle@gmail.com> wrote:
> As for controlling the runsvdir processes, I've never had ocassion to stop
> them once their started.  My program does track all of them, and it has been
> my intention to shutdown the runsvdir process for a user when they are
> removed from the svusers group.  However, since runsvdir is designed to run
> forever and my intention was to provide reliable services for priveleged
> users,  I'm not sure the restarting users runsvdir processes is necesarry.
> That doesn't mean I wouldn't happily accept a patch that provides that
> feature.

I think control of the user runsvdir processes is just as important as
control of other long-running processes that you usually intend to have
run forever (cron or apache or whatever).  That's why the sv interface
exists, after all, even though you don't usually intend to ever stop
cron, for example.  Ultimately there's always a need.  Stop the user's
service when they are removed from the system is a relevant example, for
instance.

I like to have a separate runsvdir process per user (as your system has)
but then to also have system-level runsv control over those user
runsvdir processes.  That's why I opted to go for separate runsv
directories per user.  I can then use a simple script to construct and
tear down those runsv directories as needed, and then use sv as root to
control the user directories from a system level.

jamie.