I've started thinking that I wouldn't need to abandon use of 'sv'. With
both runit and s6 installed, and a supervision tree of s6-svscan and
s6-supervise processes, I suspect that 'sv t ...' would still work. 'sv
status ...' on the other hand might not. I would need to study the
control
fifo
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018, Charlie Brady wrote:
> 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