From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general/562
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Charlie Brady <charlieb-smarden-supervision@budge.apana.org.au>
Newsgroups: gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general
Subject: Re: runsv and process groups
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 17:29:32 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0408231722160.5131-100000@e-smith.charlieb.ott.istop.com>
References: <1xhyvvbx.fsf@ID-23066.news.dfncis.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1093296588 1538 80.91.224.253 (23 Aug 2004 21:29:48 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 21:29:48 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: supervision@list.skarnet.org
Original-X-From: supervision-return-800-gcsg-supervision=m.gmane.org@list.skarnet.org Mon Aug 23 23:29:40 2004
Return-path: <supervision-return-800-gcsg-supervision=m.gmane.org@list.skarnet.org>
Original-Received: from antah.skarnet.org ([212.85.147.14])
	by deer.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 1BzMNo-0007Wn-00
	for <gcsg-supervision@gmane.org>; Mon, 23 Aug 2004 23:29:40 +0200
Original-Received: (qmail 4117 invoked by uid 76); 23 Aug 2004 21:30:01 -0000
Mailing-List: contact supervision-help@list.skarnet.org; run by ezmlm
List-Post: <mailto:supervision@list.skarnet.org>
List-Help: <mailto:supervision-help@list.skarnet.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:supervision-unsubscribe@list.skarnet.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:supervision-subscribe@list.skarnet.org>
List-Archive: <http://www.skarnet.org/lists/>
Original-Received: (qmail 4111 invoked from network); 23 Aug 2004 21:30:00 -0000
X-X-Sender: charlieb@e-smith.charlieb.ott.istop.com
Original-To: Clemens Fischer <ino-qc@spotteswoode.de.eu.org>
In-Reply-To: <1xhyvvbx.fsf@ID-23066.news.dfncis.de>
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general:562
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general:562


On 23 Aug 2004, Clemens Fischer wrote:

> * Charlie Brady:
> 
> > Can you think of any reason why runsv *shouldn't* make the supervised
> > process a process group leader? It'd take very little code ...
> 
> how about this one:  there might be a *vital* service running on the
> machine which you *want* to bring the machine down in case it fails.

How likely is that to be the case? Could that problem only be solved by 
keeping the current behaviour?

> with the current behaviour, the user can choose to give it its own session
> using "chpst -P ..." as an additional option.

Sure, but to be safe, you need to do that in every run script. Wouldn't it 
be easier for (nearly) everyone if runsv did it?

---
Charlie