I've only skimmed the link in that sentence but it appears that
supervision-scripts can be easily turned into source directories with a
simple conversion script or program. All of the links used in
supervision-scripts are required to be relative-pathed, and the support
scripts are in dot-directories which are not copied by default (which is
fine). There does not appear to be any namespace collisions between the
projects.
With regard to
http://skarnet.org/software/s6-rc/overview.html,
specifically the section titled "The compilation phase", and this sentence:
"Users are expected to write their service definitions - be it oneshots,
longruns or bundles - in one or more /source directories/, in the s6-rc
source format
<
http://skarnet.org/software/s6-rc/s6-rc-compile.html#source>." I think
only the following needs to be done (although I need to read that page
completely and confirm this):
* Write a script to translate the ./needs directory of a definition into
a dependencies file. Which is more or less a one-liner that pipes the
directory listing into a text file one line at a time. The script will
be placed into svcdef/.bin (along with all of the other tool scripts).
Should be easy.
* Write a script that, for a given definition, calls the ./needs
translator (when required), then copies the definition + (optional)
dependencies file into the source directory format, making any name
changes as needed. Not rocket science.
* Figure out how to place the .bin, .run, .log, and .finish directories
into the live system. This is probably done with another simple support
script that simply does a "cp -Rav" of them to where the compiled
definitions live. Not exactly rocket science either.
Beyond that, the rest of the definitions should be plug and play.
With regard to converting rc scripts to source format...I'm all ears,
this would of course accelerate my project by an order of magnitude,
because I would be able to simply convert the giant blob of rc
definitions that I extracted from Debian 7...
On 9/23/2015 1:59 PM, Laurent Bercot wrote:
>
> Reports and suggestions on usability are also welcome. I'd like
> to get s6-rc adopted by Unix distributions, and that will only
> happen if they don't see it as daunting work; ideally, I'd like to
> spark a discussion about the best ways to convert existing rc
> scripts to the s6-rc source format, and then submit the emerging
> ideas to distributions.
>
Received on Wed Sep 23 2015 - 22:58:58 UTC