From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general/1591 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Charlie Brady Newsgroups: gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general Subject: RE: Customised control help Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 09:41:34 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: References: <14AE52C8045C4D1F9AC27FD137DA0657@home.internal> <50F2BE60A0EF6D478B1BCC633DEC28CC01F704@server.home.internal> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1199284904 31803 80.91.229.12 (2 Jan 2008 14:41:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 14:41:44 +0000 (UTC) Cc: supervision@list.skarnet.org To: rehan khan Original-X-From: supervision-return-1826-gcsg-supervision=m.gmane.org@list.skarnet.org Wed Jan 02 15:42:00 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcsg-supervision@gmane.org Original-Received: from antah.skarnet.org ([212.85.147.14]) by lo.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JA4nA-0003P9-2l for gcsg-supervision@gmane.org; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 15:42:00 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 7617 invoked by uid 76); 2 Jan 2008 14:41:43 -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 7609 invoked from network); 2 Jan 2008 14:41:43 -0000 X-X-Sender: charlieb@e-smith.charlieb.ott.istop.com In-Reply-To: <50F2BE60A0EF6D478B1BCC633DEC28CC01F704@server.home.internal> Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general:1591 Archived-At: On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, rehan khan wrote: >>> 4) Is there a more detailed description of customised control somewhere? >> >> I think the man page of runsv is complete and accurate. What do you think >> is missing? The source code might help you if you wish to learn more or to >> confirm what you read in the man page. > > Heh, some of my questions might seem dumb but I have read ALL the docs many > times over. I have found the documentation to be 100% complete. However > sometimes it can be difficult to interpret for all situations (or the particular > situation that is in my head :). For example in the above documentation example > it might be better to say that the examples given are special cases or that they > are examples that apply to all the options. I think it reads clearly that 'o', 'd' and 'x' are special cases, and that 'for each' really does mean 'for each', but YMMV. > Perhaps also to expand on the description ... How would the description be expanded if it is already complete? > and to describe the exit codes > (even if it is repeated from elsewhere). The exit codes of runsv are clearly stated. The interpretation of zero exit status from custom control scripts also seems clearly stated to me. "If the program exits with return code 0, runsv refrains from sending the service the corresponding signal." What would you express differently?