On Sat, Feb 21, 2026 at 07:29:29PM +0000, Andrew Bower wrote: > On Sat, Feb 21, 2026 at 08:23:25PM +0100, Joost van Baal-Ilić wrote: > > Thanks for your nice bugreport + patch. In runit's chpst(8) I read: > > > > If chpst is called as envdir, envuidgid, pgrphack, setlock, > > setuidgid, or softlimit, it emulates the functionality of > > these programs from the daemontools package respectively. > > > > Doesn't this mean that daemons which ship daemontools-style run scripts work > > out of the box under runit? Or am I missing something here? > > They could do with these patches :-) > > The issue is that the runit package cannot ship chpst linked as > /usr/bin/envdir, etc. because that would clash with the daemontools > package. The options are (1) Conflict with daemontools, (2) Use > 'alternatives' to be co-installable. > > I prefer the idea of being co-installable because it helps users and > developers experiment with different toolsets, compare differences in > behaviour, etc. Also there's sometimes not 100% overlap/superset/subset > as appropriate between what different packages can do. > > And the nice thing about using alternatives is that chpst doesn't even > have to set up the symlinks itself, as the alternatives debhelper does > it as part of the alternatives definition. > > The not-so-nice part is that the main package that 'owns' those names > has to rename them, but it works out fine for the user.
A, makes sense; thanks for this explanation. I'll wait for Jan Mojžíš's opinion: he's done most of the work on the daemontools packaging. Bye, Joost
