On 4/21/2015 7:34 AM, TheOldFellow wrote:
So I should need much less than Laurent has in his example. (did I mention
the ancient grey cells?)
I'm no expert at execline, so I'm taking wild guesses here based on the
little bits that I know from reading about it.
#close stdout and stderr
On 4/21/2015 2:19 PM, Buck Evan wrote:
Does s6 (or friends) have first-class support for dependant services?
I know that runit and daemontools do not. I do know that nosh has
direct support for this. I believe s6 supports it through various
intermediary tools, i.e. using socket activation to
Does s6 (or friends) have first-class support for dependant services?
For example, I'd like to encode the fact that I don't expect service A to
be able to come up before service B.
Alternatively, are there general-purpose practices for breaking this kind
of dependency?
On 21/04/2015 23:19, TheOldFellow wrote:
I am trying to write the init-stage1 script, so (B). The initrd has
completed by the time it runs, since root is a lvm2 partition /dev
must be mounted in initrd so that /dev/mapper/'root' can be mounted
on /. That's the main function of my initrd,
On 4/21/2015 2:56 PM, Buck Evan wrote:
My understanding of s6 socket activation is that services should open,
hold onto their listening socket when they're up, and s6 relies on the
OS for swapping out inactive services. It's not socket activation in
the usual sense.
On 22/04/2015 02:58, Buck Evan wrote:
Just to set my own expectations, may I send pull requests to github, or
must I send patches here?
Please send patches here. Even better, please start a design discussion
about the feature/change you want before writing a patch, unless it is
very small.
I think s6 is fine how it is. Currently many related projects exist on githib
that can help or assist s6, but they are not developed solely on githib.
Runit-for-LFS was based in GoogleCode for logistical reasons until Google
pulled the plug on us.
I also see s6 not as a true Cathedral, but as
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Laurent Bercot ska-supervis...@skarnet.org
wrote:
On 22/04/2015 02:58, Buck Evan wrote:
I brought up the bazaar because you criticized systemd as neglecting The
bazaar approach that has made the free software ecosystem what it is
today;, which made me think
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 4:46 PM, Wayne Marshall w...@b0llix.net wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 16:40:08 -0700
Buck Evan b...@yelp.com wrote:
... The only reason I care at all is
because I'd like to see s6 have a more diverse set of committers,
which is a fair heuristic for project health
On 4/21/2015 3:08 PM, Buck Evan wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Avery Payne avery.p.pa...@gmail.com
mailto:avery.p.pa...@gmail.com wrote:
Alternatively, are there general-purpose practices for
breaking this kind
of dependency?
Strange as it sounds,
I believe the s6 project would benefit measurably from a move to github.
Using the ticketing and pull-request system that so many are familiar with
would increase participation by the community and so foster bugfixes and
acceptance.
On 22/04/2015 00:35, Buck Evan wrote:
I believe the s6 project would benefit measurably from a move to github.
There's a github mirror of s6 already. Moving the main repository to
github, and using more github services, is not going to happen, for
both philosophical and technical reasons.
On 22/04/2015 01:40, Buck Evan wrote:
I didn't know until you two told me just now.
Can we have a link in the doc?
Good idea, thank you. Done now, in the Download section of
the main page.
For some reason, git remote is having trouble replicating the
change on to the github copy. It gives
My understanding of s6 socket activation is that services should open, hold
onto their listening socket when they're up, and s6 relies on the OS for
swapping out inactive services. It's not socket activation in the usual
sense. http://skarnet.org/software/s6/socket-activation.html
So I wonder
On 21/04/2015 16:34, TheOldFellow wrote:
I have built a fresh LFS, it is on a LVM2 partition, so I need an
Initramfs, and this enters the Stage 1 script with a devtmpfs somewhat
populated, and /sys and /proc already mounted. My thinking is that these
mounts are OK, and I don't see any advantage
15 matches
Mail list logo
