On 18/07/2015 12:42, Fred DC wrote:
> I am not saying that runit is better as s6 - all I want to point out is
> that debian runit, until recently, intergrates fairly well with sysv-rc.

The reason why it does is that it compromises on supervision. I don't
know how debian runit is packaged, but I'm willing to bet that in this
model, for instance, udevd is not supervised by runsv. See the first FAQ
entry at http://skarnet.org/software/s6-linux-init/quickstart.html for
details.


> Yes, the supervised services do need their own service-framework with
> their own scripts. For me (as a simple user) the hard nut to crack was
> to write stubs and a script which during a debian-update translate the
> inet-calls to sv-calls without insserv telling me to take a hike.
>
> I succeded because I accepted the fact that I have the standard
> lsb-sysv-scripts in /etc/init.d/ and that the underlying dpkg-system
> does use these scripts.

I'm currently working on a service manager for s6 that can ease the
transition between a sysv-rc style and a supervision style, i.e. it can
use the sysv-rc scripts at first, and switch to a supervision style
service by service when package maintainers start supporting it. It
still doesn't make things easy, but I believe it makes the support
envisionable for a distribution, because the workload does not have
to be done all at once - it can be spread over time.


> BTW, and what about rcS, rc0 and rc6....a complete re-write?

That's my ultimate goal, but it's obviously not feasible without a
gradual and smooth transition plan, which I'm elaborating now.


> Naah... KISS... use what we got! Strictly my opinion.

KISS all right, but sysv-rc is not SS, and most importantly, it's
not correct. "Use what we got" is a good strategy to organize work
and focus on the urgent things first, but at some point, when
"what we got" is insufficient, it needs to be addressed. Take your
time, and I'll be there when distributions are ready to tackle the
issue. :)

--
Laurent