On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Lennart Poettering <lenn...@poettering.net> wrote: > So yeah, cool feature, and I'd be very happy to see this in PID 1, but I > am very sure we shouldn't merge this tool like this!
Can I get some pointers on how to do it in PID 1? If I start them the same way as the semicolon delimiter for ExecStart= does, then they'll all have different namespaces if any are in use. I'd like to avoid that. I'd also like to spawn replacements for ones that exit, and that's an equally hard problem if there's no supervisor process in the namespace. Would it be better to build this around a child instance of systemd, container-style, that manages the pool? _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
