Re: Added signal to have runsvdir wait

From: Colin Booth <>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 15:31:32 +0000

On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 06:19:33AM +0000, Yanko wrote:
> Hello,
> I was wondering if there was any interest in having runsvdir wait?
> Similar to the HUP behavior but blocking.
Sorru, I missed this email. I believe the lack of interest is that the
official daemontools method for dealing with blocking on exit was to
have your caller bring everything down, then signal the scanner to bail.
Or in the case of systemic shutdown, term everything and then wait for
each supervisor to exit independently.

Additionally, runit is considered finished software by the author, so
if it solves a problem for you great! But don't expect it to get

If you have the flexibility to change supervisors, I'd suggest switching
to s6. It already supports blocking shutdowns via the signal redirection
mechanism, and has a richer support tooling ecosystem.
> I added another exit case that handles USR1, and waits for runsv(s) to
> finish. See patch attached. (I'm not a fluent C programmer, so not
> sure if I'm missing something).
Like I said earlier, if it works for you that's awesome, but I think the
runit community has alreaey built toolimg around handling the standard
(albiet annoying) runit mechanisms.
> Thanks!
> Yanko

Colin Booth
Received on Fri Nov 30 2018 - 15:31:32 UTC

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