Compatibilities between runit and s6 (re: Incompatibilities between runit and s6?)

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

On Thu, 11 Jan 2018, Charlie Brady wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Jan 2018, Avery Payne wrote:
> 
> > I am guessing the differences will be subtle, and most of the general
> > behavior you desire will remain the same.  You may be able to get a way
> > with a "sed 's/sv\ /s6-sv\ /' <old-script-name >new-script-name" on some of
> > your scripts; give it a try, what could it hurt?
> 
> That would fail because, eg, 'sv t xxx' needs to become 's6-svc -t xxx'.  

I've started thinking that I wouldn't need to abandon use of 'sv'. With 
both runit and s6 installed, and a supervision tree of s6-svscan and 
s6-supervise processes, I suspect that 'sv t ...' would still work. 'sv 
status ...' on the other hand might not. I would need to study the control 
fifo protocol and status file layout to be sure.

Again, has anyone else considered these things and can offer an opinion? 
Are the differences documented anywhere? There is a certain level of 
compatibility between daemontools and runit, and I presume the same exists 
for s6. The devil is in the detils.