From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general/727 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lars Kellogg-Stedman Newsgroups: gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general Subject: Re: Adding a 'setup' phase to service startup? Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 20:07:03 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <421AB049.4040403@gmail.com> Reply-To: lars@oddbit.com NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1109189260 32082 80.91.229.2 (23 Feb 2005 20:07:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 20:07:40 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: supervision-return-966-gcsg-supervision=m.gmane.org@list.skarnet.org Wed Feb 23 21:07:39 2005 Original-Received: from antah.skarnet.org ([212.85.147.14] ident=qmailr) by ciao.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1D42nD-0006GP-5F for gcsg-supervision@gmane.org; Wed, 23 Feb 2005 21:07:31 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 29205 invoked by uid 76); 23 Feb 2005 20:11:38 -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 29199 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2005 20:11:37 -0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-To: supervision@list.skarnet.org Original-Lines: 26 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 209-6-203-41.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.1 (Linux) Original-Sender: news X-MailScanner-To: gcsg-supervision@gmane.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general:727 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general:727 > Although I think runit itself should remain pristine in that it only > runs the ./run script for a service... And the finish script. And the log/run script. And the various control/* scripts. My point being, adding a setup phase to the service doesn't represent much of a change, especially since it has zero impact on the system's behavior if there is no setup script in place. Adding an entire new layer on to handle dependencies would seem to detract from the inherent simplicity of the system -- one should be able to use runsv, by itself, to start up a service and have behave it exactly like it would when run "in production". This means that new logic for things like dependency resolution (or respawn limiting) needs to be either (a) implemented in runsv, or (b) implemented as external commands that can be executed by the 'run' script. Implementing service dependencies in the run script is already difficult, particularly because the runit tools are unable to differentiate between "starting up" and "up". This is the small, reasonably well bounded problem that I'm hoping to solve. -- Lars -- Lars Kellogg-Stedman