Re: Compatibilities between runit and s6 (re: Incompatibilities between runit and s6?)

On Tue, 16 Jan 2018, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote: > Charlie Brady: > > > Sorry, doesn't work for me: > > > You need a POSIX-conformant system with all of the POSIX utilities, including > |pax| . OK, so this statement is

Re: Compatibilities between runit and s6 (re: Incompatibilities between runit and s6?)

You have prompted me to fill in a long-standing dangling hyperlink. * http://jdebp.eu./FGA/slashpackage.html If I may add my two cents: I think you're mixing two very different things in this page. There is the slashpackage convention for installed packages, i.e. visibility of executables

Re: Compatibilities between runit and s6 (re: Incompatibilities between runit and s6?)

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 08:06:09AM +, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote: > You have prompted me to fill in a long-standing dangling hyperlink. > > * http://jdebp.eu./FGA/slashpackage.html > Ah, good to hear! I've been waiting for that page to be written for a while :).

Re: Compatibilities between runit and s6 (re: Incompatibilities between runit and s6?)

Charlie Brady: Sorry, doesn't work for me: You need a POSIX-conformant system with all of the POSIX utilities, including |pax| . The Debian |package/debian/control| file automatically ensures this on Debian, with its

Re: Compatibilities between runit and s6 (re: Incompatibilities between runit and s6?)

Thomas Caravia: I'm not familiar with rpm but my packaging is just this: You have prompted me to fill in a long-standing dangling hyperlink. * http://jdebp.eu./FGA/slashpackage.html

Re: Compatibilities between runit and s6 (re: Incompatibilities between runit and s6?)

On Mon, 15 Jan 2018, Thomas Caravia wrote: > I'm not familiar with rpm but my packaging is just this: > > 1) package/compile: you'll need "redo" to build Sorry, doesn't work for me: bash-4.2$ package/compile redo: ERROR: all: Cannot find .do file to use. bash-4.2$ sh -ex package/compile +

Re: Compatibilities between runit and s6 (re: Incompatibilities between runit and s6?)

Note that s6 has been using a configure/make/sudo make install building scheme since 2014, and supports FHS as well as slashpackage, so it can be easily packaged for any distribution. :P -- Laurent

Re: Compatibilities between runit and s6 (re: Incompatibilities between runit and s6?)

Hello, > > Do you know whether anyone has documented how to build on a non-Debian > > linux? An rpm spec file would be ideal, but just simple non-Debian > > centric build instructions would be better than nothing. > > Thomas Caravia constructed the Archnosh PKGBUILD the same way. It does >

Re: Incompatibilities between runit and s6?

Thanks. I would rather you write one small unit file then me needing to write ten or fifteen of them. Done. https://skarnet.org/software/s6/s6-svscan-not-1.html#systemd I did not follow Jonathan's suggestion to use a .path unit file, because the other examples on this page assume that the

Re: Compatibilities between runit and s6 (re: Incompatibilities between runit and s6?)

Jonathan de Boyne Pollard: The |service-manager| manual page from version 1.37 or later of the nosh toolset contains a full breakdown of the control/status API in a |supervise/| directory, including the daemontools-encore extensions and the nosh service-manager's own extensions. I am hoping

Re: Compatibilities between runit and s6 (re: Incompatibilities between runit and s6?)

Charlie Brady: There is a certain level of compatibility between daemontools and runit, and I presume the same exists for s6. The devil is in the detils. The |service-manager| manual page from version 1.37 or later of the nosh toolset contains a full breakdown of the control/status API in a

Re: Compatibilities between runit and s6 (re: Incompatibilities between runit and s6?)

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

Compatibilities between runit and s6 (re: Incompatibilities between runit and s6?)

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

Re: Incompatibilities between runit and s6?

Laurent Bercot: 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. *

Re: Incompatibilities between runit and s6?

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

re: Incompatibilities between runit and s6?

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?

re: Incompatibilities between runit and s6?

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? Also, for those systems not running CentOS, what