Re: runit SIGPWR support

It might be plain ignorance on my side but is there a possibility that some malicious outsider's intent be able to induce a SIGPWR signal just to fool the system to shut down? If so then hardcoding it as an autoresponse would be perceived as a weakness. The choice for any sysadmin to use the

Re: runit SIGPWR support

Jeff: > > you should patch the code, runit is dead anyway. > try something along this lines in the source: > > #ifdef SIGPWR > /* handle that one */ > ... > #endif > > i can't see the problem, you have to patch the runit sources to > fulfil your requirements since that project is dead and

Re: State of skarnet.org projects

Steve Litt: > On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 11:40:07 +0200 > fungal-net wrote: > >> Steve Litt: >>> On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 12:34:05 +0200 >>> fungal-net wrote: >>> >>>> Void is also >>>> very close, I for one use it with s6 and 66 for

Re: State of skarnet.org projects

Laurent Bercot: >> I'd like to know what is your view and feeling of this expanding base, >> what does it mean to you, and whether you see an influence of the >> project by the growing popularity.  If I can interpret this announcement >> correctly you seem already to be reacting to the Debian s6

Re: State of skarnet.org projects

Steve Litt: > On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 12:34:05 +0200 > fungal-net wrote: > >> Void is also >> very close, I for one use it with s6 and 66 for a while now and in >> many ways being more carefree than obarun having fast balls thrown by >> arch daily. > &g

Re: State of skarnet.org projects

Is it 10 years now that s6 has been around, more or less. For 10 year old software of its nature it appears as the best kept secret. There are 3 distributions openly available to various levels of users' expertise, that are now utilizing s6 init and supervision, Obarun for 4 years, Adelie for

Re: The "Unix Philosophy 2020" document

Casper Ti. Vector: > On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 11:37:19PM +0800, Casper Ti. Vector wrote: >> Now I know the reason. "Your account is too young. Please wait >> at least 5 days to begin posting." --- /u/AutoModerator > > Another try: > . > Given the

Re: Debian and init freedom (logging freedom?)

Jonathan de Boyne Pollard: > fungal-net: > >> While upgrading my antiX-sid (Debian) with s6 and 66 installed today >> > … the system enforced Debian policy on you, which you had violated by > using UIDs less than 100 for your private "log" and "s6log"

Debian and init freedom (logging freedom?)

While upgrading my antiX-sid (Debian) with s6 and 66 installed today I got two interesting messages. This is copy paste from the terminal screen. If systemd-log is on the /etc/ files then you have nothing to worry about. :) At least they ask whether you allow Lenny to sweep your /etc/ for you.

Re: s6 usability

As a test for portability for the 66 software, other than its display case based on arch - called obarun - a couple of devs recently tried it in a few distributions that have the s6 in their repository. Funtoo was the first target https://forum.obarun.org/viewtopic.php?id=956 and this was done by

Re: interesting claims

Guillermo: >> But although I got curious what "kill -9 -1" would do to different >> systems I don't see the usefulness of this. > > Since you actually went ahead and did it, and reported the results, > for me it was interesting to see if they matched what theory says that > would happen. They did

Re: interesting claims

The tests I did were on live images run as vm-s Jeff: > 18.05.2019, 00:58, "Guillermo" : >>>  OpenRC: Nice, >>>    init >>> |_ zsh >>>    when I exited the shell there was nothing but a dead cursor on my screen > > in this case the shell is not signaled since "-1" does not signal the sending