On 18/07/15 12:42, Fred DC wrote:
On 18/07/2015 10:49, Laurent Bercot wrote:
Believe me, providing sysv-rc compatibility when you're working on
a supervision suite is no small feat: the paradigm is very different,
. If it was easy, we would have provided compatibility packages
On 18/07/2015 09:52, Didier Kryn wrote:
There are two categories of launchers: supervisors and
non-supervisors. Similarly, I think two scripts only are needed for
every daemon: one for launching without supervision, alla sysv-init
and one for launching from a supervisor. Just two, not one per
Le 17/07/2015 21:38, ibid...@gmail.com a écrit :
KatolaZ:
You guys talk about supporting half a dozen init systems like it
was similar to providing half a dozen different editors, which
believe me is not quite the case.
This is true, because supporting an init system requires every
On 18/07/2015 10:49, Laurent Bercot wrote:
Believe me, providing sysv-rc compatibility when you're working on
a supervision suite is no small feat: the paradigm is very different,
. If it was easy, we would have provided compatibility packages
long ago, and supervision would
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 09:52:18AM +0200, Didier Kryn wrote:
[cut]
Further more, a method could be agreed on to tell the script if
the daemon is going to be supervised or not, and we would then need
only one script for all cases.
For example, providing supervised-start and
On 18/07/2015 12:42, Fred DC wrote:
I am not saying that runit is better as s6 - all I want to point out is
that debian runit, until recently, intergrates fairly well with sysv-rc.
The reason why it does is that it compromises on supervision. I don't
know how debian runit is packaged, but I'm
Le 18/07/2015 12:43, KatolaZ a écrit :
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 09:52:18AM +0200, Didier Kryn wrote:
[cut]
Further more, a method could be agreed on to tell the script if
the daemon is going to be supervised or not, and we would then need
only one script for all cases.
For example,
