12.02.2020, 22:54, "Colin Booth" <co...@heliocat.net>: > On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 05:25:56PM +0300, innerspacepilot wrote: >> Why not just make runit systems run inside containers out of the box? >> We are talking about one/two lines of code.
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 the code is not maintained anymore. >> Why can't we be just a little bit more friendly to each other? that would be indeed helpful. > I wasn't trying to be hostile, apologies if it came across that way. As > far as I know SIGPWR is a Linux-specific signal so services that are > aiming for portability will either need to have special handling for > that in the linux case or need to ignore it. Ergo, runit (and all other > POSIX-compliant inits) currently have no special handling around SIGPWR > as they don't understand what it is. > > Is this the right behavior? I don't know. Something like SIGPWR as an > alerting mechanism when you're switched to UPS battery is pretty nice in > a general case but using that as your container shutdown solution > isolates you into a very SysV-specific world. Overriding the default via > lxc.signal.halt will allow you to modify what you send to something that > is within the POSIX spec and allow you to trigger shutdowns the "right" > way. It's a little lame but it is portable, and LXC using a non-portable > signal is a little bit of a bummer. just BS. adding a bit of handler code for SIGPWR is no big deal, please stop your lamento, it's so boring.
