Re: Built-in ordering

From: Colin Booth <>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 18:10:26 -0700

On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 12:49 PM, Steve Litt <> wrote:
> If you're willing to have a stage1 and stage2, no, it isn't. I
> personally consider the existance of a separate stage1 and stage2 to be
> suboptimal, and think the ability to mix ordering of runonce and
> runlongs is a good thing that might be essential in some use cases.
Stage 1 is "things that are done before your supervisor is running"
and stage 2 is "things that are done once the supervisor is running."
Separating those stages into different scripts is as much a matter of
logical compartmentalization as it is any technical reason. When
dealing with an init system that supports runlevels there's a similar
stage 1/stage 2 distinction: rcS is stage 1, every other run level is
stage 2.
> So on suckless-init plus daemontools-encore (or s6) plus LittKit, if I
> had any stage1 at all, it was just remounting / read-write, running
> LittKit lk_prepare script, and then running whatever daemontools-encore
> calls their svscanboot program. All the rest happens in what would
> normally be called stage 2.
That sounds about right for the stage 1 work. The only thing my s6
systems do in stage 1 is tmpfs mounts and bringing up s6-svscan.
Everything else (including read/write remounts) is done in stage 2 and
order managed by s6-rc.


"If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to
man as it is, infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees
all things thru' narrow chinks of his cavern."
  --  William Blake
Received on Mon Sep 21 2015 - 01:10:26 UTC

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