Re: runsv and process groups

[Charlie Brady <charlieb-smarden-supervision@budge.apana.org.au>]

On 26 Aug 2004, Clemens Fischer wrote:

> * 2004-08-23 Charlie Brady:
> 
> > On 23 Aug 2004, Clemens Fischer wrote:
> >
> >> 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?
> 
> for me this is about choice,

I don't see how your freedom would be curtailed if runsv's behaviour was a 
little different.

> but you certainly have a point.  AFAIC i prefer the current way and
> advice in the runsv(8) documentation to add the "chpst -P ..." bit for
> the "default case".

The runsv documentation doesn't currently have advice to use "chpst -P
..." in run scripts, and very few of the publicly available run scripts
add that "safety belt". IIUC, your suggestion is that that documentation
is added. Mine is that the bahviour of runsv is changed - I don't accept 
that your proposed scenario is a real-world case, but if it is, I expect 
you can find a simple solution which suits your needs. And if not, then 
you could revert the proposed change in the source code.

I'm still curious about Gerrit's opinion. Is there a good reason why runsv 
doesn't put each run script in a new process group? [Other than the 
obvious reason that that would be different behavior to daemontools].

---
Charlie