On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 12:32:27PM +0000, Laurent Bercot wrote: > Is there real pressure to have this?
AFAIK, the only pressure is from systemd fanboys. But this is indeed a biggest criticism from them; we would be able to save quite a lot of flamewars if the feature was simply there. Nevertheless I understand the feature will be, frankly, a vase. > The problem with such a "babysitter" is that it would need to forward > signals, much like execline's trap program. It's ugly, and I'd rather > have people not do that any more than strictly necessary. We will also need to handle disgusting PID files for double-forking services. And in order to be safe in case the service crashes before the PID file is created, we will perhaps need some kind of startup deadline. A big can of worms. > As for cgroups-related chainloaders, I could probably write some in > s6-linux-utils, but wasn't the cgroups interface designed to make > sure those operations are trivial to implement as small scripts? Well, this is a good idea. I can even provide such library scripts in slew, but the libraries will be `rc'-specific, and not used in the traditional (exec()-based) sense of chainloading. > I don't, for several reasons, one of which is that Google's homemade > supervisor (which is... not great) is called "babysitter", and it > triggers cringey memories. :) -- My current OpenPGP key: RSA4096/0x227E8CAAB7AA186C (expires: 2020.10.19) 7077 7781 B859 5166 AE07 0286 227E 8CAA B7AA 186C
