On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 16:15:55 +0100
Didier Kryn <kryn@???> wrote:

>      Hence the argument already exposed by several persons on this
> list, in particular Laurent: let's pid1 do *only* what no other
> program can do.

================================================
NOTE: My response is based on *my* reading and interpretation of
Laurent's emails here and on the supervision list and a few to me
personally. It's very possible I've misread or misinterpreted...
================================================

U sure that was Laurent who said "let pid do *only* what no other
program can do"? Laurent prioritizes PID1 being able to *respawn* the
process supervisor, which from my understanding means that PID1 must
*contain* the process supervisor. Laurent has opined that the
architectures of Runit, http://ewontfix.com/14/ and Suckless Init +
daemontools-encore + LittKit or Suckless Init + s6
+ LittKit all suffer from the inability for PID1 to respawn the process
supervisor, and if I'm not mistaken the PID1 used by s6 (when s6 is
used as a whole init) contains the supervisor.

From Laurent's point of view, if the supervisor (runsvdir or
svscanboot or whatever) dies or is killed AND all the gettys
also die, one loses all control of the computer and must
hardware reboot, and that's a bad thing.

My opinion is that although this is indeed a bad thing, I'm
willing to risk it to get the breathtaking simplicity of Rich
Felker's vision in http://ewontfix.com/14/.

SteveT

Steve Litt
February 2016 featured book: The Key to Everyday Excellence
http://www.troubleshooters.com/key