From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general/2895 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: "Laurent Bercot" Newsgroups: gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general Subject: Re: runit SIGPWR support Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 19:53:44 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20200131043919.GF12551@cathexis.xen.prgmr.com> <20200214131544.tcvmh7tqu4hu2gul@caspervector> <1f198ed8-3682-26cd-e8d5-2efc412afde2@gmx.com> <18110531581952419@sas8-7ec005b03c91.qloud-c.yandex.net> <7003111582476686@vla3-6a5326aeb4ee.qloud-c.yandex.net> <7845971582549235@iva4-35f072fa8e4e.qloud-c.yandex.net> Reply-To: "Laurent Bercot" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="47643"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: eM_Client/7.2.36908.0 To: "supervision@list.skarnet.org" Original-X-From: supervision-return-2484-gcsg-supervision=m.gmane-mx.org@list.skarnet.org Mon Feb 24 20:53:51 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcsg-supervision@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from alyss.skarnet.org ([95.142.172.232]) by ciao.gmane.io with smtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1j6Jna-000CHI-L3 for gcsg-supervision@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 20:53:50 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 29129 invoked by uid 89); 24 Feb 2020 19:54:13 -0000 Mailing-List: contact supervision-help@list.skarnet.org; run by ezmlm Original-Sender: Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Original-Received: (qmail 29119 invoked from network); 24 Feb 2020 19:54:12 -0000 In-Reply-To: <7845971582549235@iva4-35f072fa8e4e.qloud-c.yandex.net> X-VR-SPAMSTATE: OK X-VR-SPAMSCORE: 0 X-VR-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedugedrledtgddufedtucetufdoteggodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfpfgfogfftkfevteeunffgpdfqfgfvnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhhrfgggtgfgsehtqhertddtreejnecuhfhrohhmpedfnfgruhhrvghnthcuuegvrhgtohhtfdcuoehskhgrqdhsuhhpvghrvhhishhiohhnsehskhgrrhhnvghtrdhorhhgqeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhhouggvpehsmhhtphhouhht Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general:2895 Archived-At: >in this case systemd compatibility can be trivially achieved, >so there is no real reason to abstain from it. "systemd compatibility" makes no sense here. We are talking about runit or s6 as an init system: by definition, in that context, there is no systemd, no interaction with systemd, nothing that requires compatibility with systemd. If by "compatibility" you mean: doing the same things that systemd does, following the same API, aligning on its choices, then I have a question for you: are you also in systemd discussion spaces and asking them to align on the design choices made by s6? Why not? >systemd uses real time signals since they were introduced >for this purpose: >signals without an already assigned default meaning, >free for application (ab)use, hence the systemd approach is >absolutely correct here. systemd uses a mechanism that it chose, and that works. sysvinit uses another mechanism, and that works. busybox init uses another mechanism, and that works. runit uses another mechanism, and that works. s6 uses another mechanism, and that works. What do you have trouble understanding? >#else > /* probably OpenBSD */ >#endif Ah yes, very accurate heuristics, absolutely up to par with my code quality standards. 10/10, would throw into the garbage bin again. -- Laurent