Is it worth having shell-agnostic ./run and ./finish?

From: Avery Payne <>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 15:05:51 -0700

I'm asking because I went through some trouble to make my project
somewhat shell-agnostic. The intent is I can have separate support for
/bin/sh, execline, or some other scripting environment, should it be
desired. But it's only worth the effort if I can get off of the
sh-as-launcher dependency completely. I can see how execline can be
used to make run scripts, but I haven't tried making a finish (nor have
I had a real need for ./finish scripts in shell). So the question is:
how difficult would it be to write a ./finish script in execline? The
answer will determine if it's worth the effort to avoid hard
dependencies on /bin/sh. If it's easy enough, then I go ahead with this
plan. If there are difficulties...well...

At the moment, all of the ./run scripts for a service definition are
simply symlinks to another symlink, which points to a script. Example:

/etc/sv/daemon/run >points to> /etc/sv/.run/run >points to>

Change the middle symlink and you get, for example:

/etc/sv/daemon/run >points to> /etc/sv/.run/run >points to>

That way you don't have to change all of the ./run symlinks in hundreds
of definitions, you just change the one.
Received on Fri Mar 20 2015 - 22:05:51 UTC

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