Hi Lorenzo, On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 11:59:23PM +0200, Lorenzo wrote: > On Thu, 16 Oct 2025 22:54:59 +0100 Andrew Bower <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Lorenzo, > > > > On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 03:36:22PM +0200, Lorenzo wrote: > > > Control: tags -1 +patch > > > > > > initial version of the service is here > > > > Thanks for adding this support to unblock my service directory > > contributions! > > > > I don't see a problem in principle with using a new service directory > > as a dependency for services that require networking, but I think > > there's a better way to the extent that I think we should not do a > > service directory. > > > > Let's remember that there is nothing philosophical or practical about > > runit that means a service directory's dependency needs to be another > > service, rather than another type of check that can be performed. > > yeah, I agree except the advantage of using a service is that sv check > waits up to x seconds before giving up. I want to implement this for > oneshots checks, without a runit service I'll have to implement this > too.
/usr/bin/timeout comes from coreutils - is that good enough? sorry I've not thought about it from this angle so need to think some more - thought I'd get a reply in to answer your questions below though. > > [snip] > > > > In my contributed service definitions I have entirely omitted network > > checks that are not needed at all, even if $network was present in the > > initscript. Instead, I have found out what the real underlying > > requirement is and implemented that as minimally as possible. > > I'm aware checks that are in the MR are more accurate, but I hoped that > a less accurate and more generic check could be used: I see that > probably this idea does not work. > > > [snip] > > > > So how can we do this generally? > > [snip] > > > I think the answer is to have a library of shell functions we can call > > to check things. You could put this in invoke-run but I wonder if that > > is getting a bit full. So maybe another file, either sourced from > > invoke-run or directly from the run script. > > > > Something like: > > > > #... > > > > . /lib/runit/network-checks > > > > have_network_address scope=global family=inet || exit 1 > > > > #... > > ok I'm going to try this, but I have few questions: > > * why map scope= to a number, if I can filter for the word? do we need > to filter for something within each scope (and it can be done with > the numeric mapping)? The reason was that I was thinking the scope runs theoretically between 0 and 255 and although most aren't used now in any situations I am aware of, they could be, and we should be agnostic to this, so you'd say you need something of at least a certain scope, which works better with a number. It's probably excessive. It might be worth us trying out an example implementation and seeing if it looks sensible or silly. > * what to do if scope= and or family= are not passed to the command? > just fail or have some default for both? No family would mean any family; missing scope I'm not sure, I think possibly >=link-local or >=global. I'm not particularly wedded to those arguments, by the way, I just came up with it as an example of the sort of thing we could have. > * what if ip (and or ifconfig) are not found in the system? is it safe > to assume that network is not configured and fail in this case? That's a good question. Needs further thought. Might be worth noting we're probably doing more than the initscripts would here - they would just wait until networkmanager/dhclient/networking or whatever services have been started and possibly failed. So maybe we're over thinking this and actually need to wait on default-network instead which can launch those like default-rsyslog does. But I think it would be ugly to have a service launch another service to do this - is there a way of having an alias for whichever network setup service is configured?
