POLL: what installations would you use process supervision in?
This is a simple straw poll. Please do *not* reply to the mailing list - I don't want to clog it with answers. Send the replies directly to my personal email address instead. The poll will remain open until March 31, and I will publish results after that time. POLL: what installations would you use process supervision in? [ ] A hand-made / hand-customized Linux installation [ ] A commercial installation (HP-UX, AIX, Pre-Oracle Solaris) [ ] an installation made with LFS [ ] an installation made with Gentoo [ ] an installation made with Arch [ ] an installation made with Debian / Ubuntu [ ] an installation made with Fedora / Red Hat [ ] an installation made with NetBSD/OpenBSD/FreeBSD [ ] an installation made with DragonflyBSD [ ] an installation made with Android Open Source Project [ ] an installation not listed here (please give name and/or details)
Re: Is it worth having shell-agnostic ./run and ./finish?
On 20/03/2015 23:05, Avery Payne wrote: question is: how difficult would it be to write a ./finish script in execline? It all depends on what you want to accomplish in your finish script, of course. But there's no reason why it should be difficult: finish scripts are essentially cleanup duties, and should be about the same order of complexity as run scripts. So, yes, fairly easy. Note, however, than unlike run scripts, you're not likely to spawn hundreds of finish scripts at the same time. So resource consumption isn't a real problem, and removing a /bin/sh dependency in finish scripts is purely artistic at that point, so don't make it a priority. ;) -- Laurent
