From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general/564 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Charlie Brady Newsgroups: gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general Subject: Re: runsv and process groups Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 13:05:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: References: <6575lv98.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 1093539942 5131 80.91.224.253 (26 Aug 2004 17:05:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 17:05:42 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: supervision-return-802-gcsg-supervision=m.gmane.org@list.skarnet.org Thu Aug 26 19:05:27 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from antah.skarnet.org ([212.85.147.14]) by deer.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1C0Ngl-0002Lo-00 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2004 19:05:27 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 4091 invoked by uid 76); 26 Aug 2004 17:05:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact supervision-help@list.skarnet.org; run by ezmlm List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: Original-Received: (qmail 4085 invoked from network); 26 Aug 2004 17:05:47 -0000 X-X-Sender: charlieb@e-smith.charlieb.ott.istop.com Original-To: supervision@list.skarnet.org In-Reply-To: <6575lv98.fsf@ID-23066.news.dfncis.de> Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general:564 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general:564 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