RE: OpenRC findings (was: Some suggestions about s6 and s6-rc)

suggestions about s6 and s6-rc) On 20/09/2015 11:12, Laurent Bercot wrote: > Interesting, thanks for the notice. I'll have to download OpenRC and > perform experiments to see exactly what it's doing. So, I downloaded OpenRC, compiled it - the build process makes a lot of an

Re: Some suggestions about s6 and s6-rc

On 20/09/2015 05:44, Casper Ti. Vector wrote: I just read your modification on the blurb page (commit e56e1294), and found it somehow still lacking: in my experience, dependency is honoured by OpenRC even with `rc_parallel' enabled; and more than that, "readiness" (here defined as `exit 0' for a

Re: Some suggestions about s6 and s6-rc

(Accidentally sent to Colin as private mail, reposting verbatim here; sorry for the disturbance...) Well, this naming issue is all about overloading... To circumvent the overloading problem, we can also use some other name pairs like `start'/`stop' or `begin'/`end' (Gentoo and LaTeX user here

Re: Some suggestions about s6 and s6-rc

This paragraph should be: > The same reason explains why I think `up'/`down' are worse names: > because `up'/`down' (in longruns) and `up'/`down' (in oneshots > currently) seem much less correlated than `run'/`finish' (in longruns) > and `up'/`down' (in oneshots currently). (I must be really

Re: Some suggestions about s6 and s6-rc

On 20/09/2015 10:47, Colin Booth wrote: specifically thus: ./up is what fires when the service is brought up, ./down is what fires when the service is brought down, ./run is what fires when a non-running service is supposed to be running, and ./finish is when a running service stops.

RE: Some suggestions about s6 and s6-rc

et.org<mailto:supervision@list.skarnet.org> Subject: Re: Some suggestions about s6 and s6-rc On 19/09/2015 14:52, James Powell wrote: > I don't see it, rc_parallel, as entirely broken, that is if you > follow proper scripting techniques and create the proper dependency > prestarts.

Re: Some suggestions about s6 and s6-rc

On 20/09/2015 07:30, Steve Litt wrote: Yes. The use of a file called "down" to tell the system not to run the process, and also the use of a script called "down" to perform an action at the appropriate time, will be holy hell to document, even if theoretically they cannot both happen in the same

Re: Some suggestions about s6 and s6-rc

On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 12:15 AM, Casper Ti. Vector wrote: > (Accidentally sent to Colin as private mail, reposting verbatim here; > sorry for the disturbance...) > > Well, this naming issue is all about overloading... To circumvent the > overloading problem, we can also

Re: Some suggestions about s6 and s6-rc

On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 15:15:52 +0800 "Casper Ti. Vector" wrote: > (Accidentally sent to Colin as private mail, reposting verbatim here; > sorry for the disturbance...) > > Well, this naming issue is all about overloading... To circumvent the > overloading problem, we can

Re: Some suggestions about s6 and s6-rc

On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 11:26:00 +0200 Laurent Bercot wrote: > On 20/09/2015 07:30, Steve Litt wrote: > > Yes. The use of a file called "down" to tell the system not to run > > the process, and also the use of a script called "down" to perform > > an action at the

Re: Some suggestions about s6 and s6-rc

On 20/09/2015 18:03, Steve Litt wrote: That's my point exactly. Unfamiliar with the tool, you read the docs, keep reading about "down" in two different contexts, get confused, and say "later days." You will not read about "down" in two different contexts in the docs. If you had read the docs,

Re: Some suggestions about s6 and s6-rc

Colin Booth: The distinction is specifically thus: ./up is what fires when the service is brought up, ./down is what fires when the service is brought down, ./run is what fires when a non-running service is supposed to be running, and ./finish is when a running service stops. Just because

Re: Some suggestions about s6 and s6-rc

On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 11:11:37 -0700 Avery Payne wrote: > With regard to having scripted placement of down files, if it was in a > template or compiled as such, then the entire process of writing it > into the definition becomes trivial or moot. While there should >

Re: Some suggestions about s6 and s6-rc

On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 11:06:34 +0800 "Casper Ti. Vector" wrote: > On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 12:33:28AM +0200, Laurent Bercot wrote: > > I agree that the name collision is confusing, and it is an > > annoyance. > > Since s6-rc is still unreleased, perhaps we can still take

Re: Some suggestions about s6 and s6-rc

I just read your modification on the blurb page (commit e56e1294), and found it somehow still lacking: in my experience, dependency is honoured by OpenRC even with `rc_parallel' enabled; and more than that, "readiness" (here defined as `exit 0' for a runscript) is also honoured: > % head

Re: Some suggestions about s6 and s6-rc

With regard to having scripted placement of down files, if it was in a template or compiled as such, then the entire process of writing it into the definition becomes trivial or moot. While there should always be a manual option to override a script, or the option to write one directly, I think

Some suggestions about s6 and s6-rc

Since it has been public that Laurent schedules the release of s6-rc in September 2015, I think it will be beneficial to try to rip the related documentation of factual errors (I keep imagining how Rachel Carson and her friends tried to eliminate flaws in "Silent Spring"). Here are my own

Re: Some suggestions about s6 and s6-rc

On 19/09/2015 14:52, James Powell wrote: I don't see it, rc_parallel, as entirely broken, that is if you follow proper scripting techniques and create the proper dependency prestarts. Even if you do, it's not guaranteed to work as long as you don't have a way to notify readiness. In the

Re: Some suggestions about s6 and s6-rc

On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 02:26:44PM +0200, Laurent Bercot wrote: > You can't add parallel service start/stop as an afterthought. It has to > be included in the design. OpenRC is a good serial rc system, but it's > not a parallel rc system by any means. Thanks for your explanation, it is very

Re: Some suggestions about s6 and s6-rc

On 20/09/2015 00:23, Steve Litt wrote: Basically, on startup, before bringing up the process supervisor, you write "down" files to every service not containing a "nodown". Then you erase down files one at a time. Clarity check. Casper, Guillermo and I were not talking about ./down files in a

Re: Some suggestions about s6 and s6-rc

Since s6-rc is still unreleased, perhaps we can still take the chance to rename `up'/`down' in oneshots to `run'/`finish', in order to let them look a little more unified? On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 12:33:28AM +0200, Laurent Bercot wrote: > I agree that the name collision is confusing, and it is

Re: Some suggestions about s6 and s6-rc

Allow me to clarify myself: what I proposed is to *also* allow oneshots which have a `down' file but no `up' file. But again, the choice is not up to me, so I stop here... On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 01:03:32PM -0300, Guillermo wrote: > have an explicit start(). Being forced to always do 'touch