From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general/2769 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Guillermo Newsgroups: gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general Subject: Re: s6 usability Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2019 15:36:45 -0300 Message-ID: References: <20191125214342.y7lx5mixrljr6s27@gromit.local> <20191127203307.ohaameqfgncm52h5@gromit.local> <20191129140901.klifpegc74iv4zul@klumpi.ignorelist.com> <20191221092639.p5iid3y3csmni4iw@klumpi.ignorelist.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="19440"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" To: "supervision@list.skarnet.org" Original-X-From: supervision-return-2358-gcsg-supervision=m.gmane.org@list.skarnet.org Sat Dec 21 19:37:01 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 1iijca-0004vH-SM for gcsg-supervision@m.gmane.org; Sat, 21 Dec 2019 19:37:00 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 17966 invoked by uid 89); 21 Dec 2019 18:37:25 -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 17959 invoked from network); 21 Dec 2019 18:37:24 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=AITbv0dQ7G38GMSXhinnoVqQLsfIL7oFKWG3DrCPzY0=; b=ob5noTZp+4UTnx5GAgkGrwUkZesx3n4R7LJUlYOHppNvLiks0bHRb1qX5a7Y3bCyXt EFh5feiPKqE5UbW262s0IzMAwdL37umxO7KmcYTY4X3okYRBhiyTmIApwtdD7V8QH5vm DqKMO8cV/8TkhO0nW35ajWAIV1XvF80JaphqeqfPeD9GhYVvz16Re1S3hAedFTjm+sOL O0r8PJtFg/cI+IihoQ/e939kUClBi02cXFoeW8GfSL/tUNYm2UZSgc7el/nNm7gxuJ2V RJE/m09rUASWgt8xxHD6WI6A0a2MC4SahhHZII3UlN7u2mlOPVY/0YBDCcpazayj9OFH U4Kw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=AITbv0dQ7G38GMSXhinnoVqQLsfIL7oFKWG3DrCPzY0=; b=tcDQJ6dbLgzo+LYBLearUNCyW52PtldJSGOXIXiEMgvVmGm2KuS5hddiYNWaDDoDLj 4bHrDe1Ir7Qrz/RNpca9RT4fm0ElXwBF71yqNu7+5ysL4U1vN+79SnqR4XHqIvPl1WyT DFuGHPaeVDShGgPy8I5mcz7tGsFOXwdREnwjAu4dpUifzJHOE1KPmv9th6Xrb6wc8LGg kGWedCHup+6HaZLWCFnEKF0qYdqBpejvZt4LlAIMvGOu3KU5xJjLxcO2/nJhhTRyQcCK C1uIcWxfjt937KLypXUeMCDQyOdfoGpP1GatVnjH7cvJ6etpI4YLp0uYKIcvE+Faaff0 456g== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXPHJ6VrtkkAU37FfwaxY+b8oYMT1otqQBmQtECXuHjNOw6LOvT w2CfP7UKDxLP7mFbl2u2dXOewp+8JgN14XK4XPhqUA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy3sDdp1k2vEnXhHJyCmSqY2NvGw0a6v928NmG5URiMP3TZbMYx631xwBBqLP0V+CXwXZMqggQN1rs59pMJ34U= X-Received: by 2002:a92:d451:: with SMTP id r17mr18036463ilm.201.1576953416132; Sat, 21 Dec 2019 10:36:56 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20191221092639.p5iid3y3csmni4iw@klumpi.ignorelist.com> Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general:2769 Archived-At: El s=C3=A1b., 21 dic. 2019 a las 6:26, Jan Braun escribi=C3=B3: > > > > 1) Debian ships with a working and maintained runit-init package. > [...] > > I hear you. Unfortunately, I have no control over what Debian does. > [...] > If you're referring to > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D906250#37 > then, well, you are fighting against POSIX. There's little choice for > Debian in the matter. Taking a hardline stance on such "legal" issues is > part of their identity as a distro. Trying to accomodate Debian is probably a waste of time at the moment, until the results of the ongoing General Resolution vote are known next weekend. > It's not difficult launching the browser, it's difficult getting to the > correct webpage. Compare > | $ elinks /usr/share/doc/s6/s6-log.html 'elinks /usr/share/doc/s6/index.html' and then navigate? :) > > Would a generic "s6" command, that takes alternative syntax and rewrite= s > > itself into "internal" commands, help? > [...] > Probably yes, but if you are doing that, then why don't you look at > argv[0] and provide the runit interface proper? :D That would create a 'multple personality binary'. > (Or provide runsv/sv/chpst/.. as individual binaries, since you prefer > those.) That could prevent installing both s6 and runit, depending on packaging, Same as s6 and daemontools[-encore] if the s6- prefix in program names was dropped. > > > 4) s6 seems more complex (hello execline!), and I don't (yet?) see an= y > > > benefit/feature I'd appreciate except minimizing wakeups. > > > > This, on the other hand, is a misconception that really needs to > > disappear. Understanding execline is *not needed* to run s6. > > Needing to *understand* execline wasn't my misconception, nor worry. But > when I'm told that a runit-lookalike depends on bringing its own > scripting language along, then that sounds more like systemd and less > like djb to me. :( > [...] > I know you > want to popularize execline, but "you must use it if you want to use my > other tools" is not a helpful form of advocacy. If there is no misconception about the need to understand execline, then I find this criticism quite odd. It's like complaining that a GUI application 'imposes' e.g. Qt, or that Xorg 'imposes' X11 video and input drivers. As long as it is a dependency (i.e. an implementation detail from the POV of a user), if fail to see the problem. I would understand if it was e.g. a big and intrusive dependency, or a dependency that prevented you from installing other packages, but execline isn't that, so I don't see how this compares to systemd. > But since you are mentioning it, that was another of my "s6 seems > more complex" issues. runit goes from "start the supervisor manually" to > "be pid 1" with very little effort. See runit(8). > Or https://www.unix.com/man-page/debian/8/runit/ I guess. ;-P > > s6-linux-init and s6-rc seem extremely complicated in comparison. s6 + s6-rc vs runit is not a good comparison. One alternative provides a service manager, the other one doesn't. Not equivalent feature sets. s6 + s6-linux-init vs runit would be a better comparison feature-wise. But, if one takes 1) into account, this is kind of abstract, because Debian currently packages neither s6-linux-init nor s6-rc. G.