El sáb., 21 dic. 2019 a las 6:26, Jan Braun escribió: > > > > 1) Debian ships with a working and maintained runit-init package. > [...] > > I hear you. Unfortunately, I have no control over what Debian does. > [...] > If you're referring to > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=906250#37 > then, well, you are fighting against POSIX. There's little choice for > Debian in the matter. Taking a hardline stance on such "legal" issues is > part of their identity as a distro.
Trying to accomodate Debian is probably a waste of time at the moment, until the results of the ongoing General Resolution vote are known next weekend. > It's not difficult launching the browser, it's difficult getting to the > correct webpage. Compare > | $ elinks /usr/share/doc/s6/s6-log.html 'elinks /usr/share/doc/s6/index.html' and then navigate? :) > > Would a generic "s6" command, that takes alternative syntax and rewrites > > itself into "internal" commands, help? > [...] > Probably yes, but if you are doing that, then why don't you look at > argv[0] and provide the runit interface proper? :D That would create a 'multple personality binary'. > (Or provide runsv/sv/chpst/.. as individual binaries, since you prefer > those.) That could prevent installing both s6 and runit, depending on packaging, Same as s6 and daemontools[-encore] if the s6- prefix in program names was dropped. > > > 4) s6 seems more complex (hello execline!), and I don't (yet?) see any > > > benefit/feature I'd appreciate except minimizing wakeups. > > > > This, on the other hand, is a misconception that really needs to > > disappear. Understanding execline is *not needed* to run s6. > > Needing to *understand* execline wasn't my misconception, nor worry. But > when I'm told that a runit-lookalike depends on bringing its own > scripting language along, then that sounds more like systemd and less > like djb to me. :( > [...] > I know you > want to popularize execline, but "you must use it if you want to use my > other tools" is not a helpful form of advocacy. If there is no misconception about the need to understand execline, then I find this criticism quite odd. It's like complaining that a GUI application 'imposes' e.g. Qt, or that Xorg 'imposes' X11 video and input drivers. As long as it is a dependency (i.e. an implementation detail from the POV of a user), if fail to see the problem. I would understand if it was e.g. a big and intrusive dependency, or a dependency that prevented you from installing other packages, but execline isn't that, so I don't see how this compares to systemd. > But since you are mentioning it, that was another of my "s6 seems > more complex" issues. runit goes from "start the supervisor manually" to > "be pid 1" with very little effort. See runit(8). > Or https://www.unix.com/man-page/debian/8/runit/ I guess. ;-P > > s6-linux-init and s6-rc seem extremely complicated in comparison. s6 + s6-rc vs runit is not a good comparison. One alternative provides a service manager, the other one doesn't. Not equivalent feature sets. s6 + s6-linux-init vs runit would be a better comparison feature-wise. But, if one takes 1) into account, this is kind of abstract, because Debian currently packages neither s6-linux-init nor s6-rc. G.