Re: [announce] New release, with relaxed requirements.

From: Laurent Bercot <>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 01:49:58 +0200

On 23/10/2015 00:57, Guillermo wrote:
> So, I don't know if the handler scripts for diverted signals that the
> new version of s6-linux-init-maker generates are intended to be
> compatible with BusyBox. But if that's the intention, then the ones
> for SIGUSR1 and SIGUSR2 are inverted: I think that the signal sent by
> 'busybox halt' to process 1 is SIGUSR1, so its handler should be the
> one calling s6-svscanctl -0 $tmpfsdir/service, and the signal sent by
> 'busybox poweroff' is SIGUSR2, so its handler should be the one
> calling s6-svscanctl -7 $tmpfsdir/service.

  Ah, this is unfortunate. I don't think there's an universal convention
for those signals; I looked at suckless init, which uses USR1 for poweroff
(and doesn't have a signal for halt). I'm more interested in supporting
busybox init than sinit, though (because sinit is incorrect: it lacks
supervision of at least one process) - so I'll reverse the signals in
s6-linux-init-maker. Thanks for the report.

> And speaking of s6-linux-init-maker, the -e VAR=VALUE option generates
> a $basedir/env/VAR file that doesn't have a trailing newline after
> VALUE, although I don't know if s6-envdir cares.

  s6-envdir does not care.

Received on Thu Oct 22 2015 - 23:49:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sun May 09 2021 - 19:38:49 UTC