Re: runit SIGPWR support

From: innerspacepilot <>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 16:39:28 +0300

On 14.02.2020 16:15, Casper Ti. Vector wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 05:25:56PM +0300, innerspacepilot wrote:
>> Why not just make runit systems run inside containers out of the box?
>> We are talking about one/two lines of code.
> Likewise `lxc.signal.halt' only needs one/two lines of code. It is also
> a interface with well-defined semantics. Modifying runit source code
> touches the implementation, with all the potential coupling between
> modules and/or between submodules. So the increase in total complexity
> of the system is almost certainly smaller when using `lxc.signal.halt'.

You mean that adding few lines of code in one place is worse than many
users of many distros must configure their containers?
I can configure that myself, but I don't want every user of runit driven
container to walk this path. Is it necessary?
Also there is a huge lack of documentation about it on the net,
especially on signals that runit accepts.

It adds complexity to users, and that means users will choose other
distros which just work.

>> Why can't we be just a little bit more friendly to each other?
> Let's see some more examples. Some daemons (eg. mysqld and php-fpm)
> use a signal other than SIGTERM for graceful shutdown, and s6 uses a
> `down-signal' file (similar to `lxc.signal.halt') for these daemons.
> Instead of modifying the daemons, we configure s6 specially; likewise,
> here I would definitely prefer `lxc.signal.halt'.
Received on Fri Feb 14 2020 - 13:39:28 UTC

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