Re: Incompatibilities between runit and s6?

[Charlie Brady]

On Wed, 10 Jan 2018, Laurent Bercot wrote:

> >If you are a systemd user, chances are you do not need s6.
> >
> >Really? So all the criticism of systemd is bunkum?
> 
>  :) I need to update this page.
>  What this means is that systemd does provide a supervision
> infrastructure, so for people stuck with systemd, it's okay to use what
> their system provides, and s6 is redundant there. This does not mean
> that all my systemd criticism is invalid.
> 
>  Also, admittedly, I simply did not want to read the systemd unit file
> documentation to understand how to start a s6 supervision tree from
> systemd. I will do the effort and come up with a small unit file
> suitable for this.

Thanks. I would rather you write one small unit file then me needing to 
write ten or fifteen of them.

I agree with you about the systemd unit file documentation. That's exactly 
why I still need runit or s6. Well, one of the reasons.

re: Incompatibilities between runit and s6?

[Charlie Brady]

On Wed, 10 Jan 2018, Avery Payne wrote:

> I am guessing the differences will be subtle, and most of the general
> behavior you desire will remain the same.  You may be able to get a way
> with a "sed 's/sv\ /s6-sv\ /' new-script-name" on some of
> your scripts; give it a try, what could it hurt?

That would fail because, eg, 'sv t xxx' needs to become 's6-svc -t xxx'.  

> Also, for those systems not running CentOS, what are you currently using
> for init + service management?

That's actually a null set, except for some old embedded systems running 
busybox init+runit.