Re: runit-scripts gone, supervision-scripts progress

From: Avery Payne <>
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2015 16:13:48 -0800

> One way or the other, ./finish should only be used scarcely, for clean-up
> duties that absolutely need to happen when the long-lived process has died:
> removing stale or temporary files, for instance. Those should be brief
> operations and absolutely cannot block.

I'm thinking "spawn to background and exit just after that".

> So, if you're implementing reporting in ./finish, make sure you are using
> fast, non-blocking commands that just fail (possibly logging an error
> message) if they have trouble doing their job.
> The way I would implement reporting wouldn't be based on ./finish, but on
> an external set of processes listening to down/up/ready notifications in
> /service/foobar/event. It would only work with s6, though.

Unfortunately I don't have a firm plan for supporting framework
enhancements just yet. Although every little note and suggestion you give
will certainly be remembered, and when the time comes, I'll see what I can
do to incorporate them.

Right now I'm having an internal dialog about if I should have an
environment variable that "hints" the framework to the scripts, which in
turn would allow me to support framework-specific features. I like the
idea but I'm concerned that it will be unmaintainable without templates.

> --
> Laurent
Received on Sat Jan 03 2015 - 00:13:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sun May 09 2021 - 19:44:18 UTC