On Sun, Dec 01, 2019 at 09:47:52PM -0500, Steve Litt wrote:
> Would it be acceptable to you and them to put the binaries in /bin/s6
> and then very early in the boot add /bin/s6 to the path? This isn't a
> lot different from what djb did with /command, except it's not off the
> root, which
sure, that was just an idea for Jan, he could just create a dir somewhere,
populate it with symlinks he prefers to the original s6 tools and put this dir
in front of the PATH when running s6 since it seems the utilities do not bother
under what name they run.
Right, but I've heard enough
Would it be acceptable to you and them to put the binaries in /bin/s6
and then very early in the boot add /bin/s6 to the path? This isn't a
lot different from what djb did with /command, except it's not off the
root, which everyone seems to hate.
s6 binaries aren't a problem for Debian; but
30.11.2019, 19:58, "Laurent Bercot" :
>> the solution here could be a simple symlink to the original s6 tool without
>> the prefix if you prefer (maybe even located in an other dir than /bin).
>
> That would be a decision for users, not software authors - else it would
> defeat the point of not
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 10:15:27 +
"Laurent Bercot" wrote:
> I hear you. Unfortunately, I have no control over what Debian does.
> Debian isn't even able to ship a not-broken execline package, so I'm
> at a loss on what to do with them. I'm working on a version of
> execline that
> they *might*
30.11.2019, 11:15, "Laurent Bercot" :
> This is very interesting. I thought that having a s6- prefix was a *good*
> thing, because I valued clarity above everything, and especially above
> terseness. I understand the advantages of having commands named "sv" and
> "chpst", but I believed, in my
As a relatively new convert to supervision software, my reasons for
preferring runit over s6 are, in order of priority:
Hi Jan,
Thank you a lot for this feedback. This is very useful UX return.
Let me address the points one by one.
1) Debian ships with a working and maintained runit-init
