Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 17:13:14 +0200
From: Natanael Copa <ncopa@alpinelinux.org>
To: Rasmus Thomsen <oss@cogitri.dev>
Cc: Francesco Colista <fcolista@alpinelinux.org>, Leonardo
 <rnalrd@gmail.com>, ~alpine/devel@lists.alpinelinux.org,
 =?ISO-8859-1?B?U/ZyZW4=?= Tempel  <soeren@soeren-tempel.net>
Subject: Re: Use of supervise-daemon in Alpine
Message-ID: <20200827171314.5bca06cf@ncopa-desktop.lan>
In-Reply-To: <799e151a9764838b5b0e273da3626e471976edb7.camel@cogitri.dev>
References: <dea709f7-94b7-f02c-929a-f7368f05bf6d@gmail.com>
	<3LLUI2KOULSYM.359WA6HATX45B@8pit.net>
	<20200821191507.7857010b@ncopa-macbook.copa.dup.pw>
	<ff2f9139bf743abd7303b89f10fc9549@alpinelinux.org>
	<799e151a9764838b5b0e273da3626e471976edb7.camel@cogitri.dev>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 15:27:22 +0200
Rasmus Thomsen <oss@cogitri.dev> wrote:

> On Thu, 2020-08-27 at 13:20 +0000, Francesco Colista wrote:
> > 27 agosto 2020 14:49, "Leonardo" <rnalrd@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >    
> > > So what should be the approach? I see:
> > > 
> > > 1. let the developer choose between supervised/unsupervised daemon
> > > 
> > > 2. provide two init scripts, supervised and unsupervised
> > > 
> > > 3. provide an "hybrid" init script which has a configurable user
> > > option
> > > to choose between supervised/unsupervised daemon
> > > 
> > > 4. other?
> > > 
> > > I'm asking these questions because I got for the first time a MR
> > > which
> > > adopts solution 2, which I never saw so far. It seems to me that
> > > solution 1 was adopted so far.
> > > 
> > > Or if there's no single solution, which should be avoided?  
> > 
> > I would for the second option, because:
> > 
> > 1. I'm the author of the MR :)
> > 2. Is the most flexible solution:
> > 
> > Option n.1 is a limitation, option n.3 is difficult to maintain
> > if/when we are going to implement other supervisor, like s6.
> > The second option allow also the two init to co-exists, which in some
> > corner cases this might be wanted.  
> 
> I think in the majority of cases we don't need an unsupervised init
> script (what's the rationale for having it in that MR (and what MR are
> we talking about? :D)), since supervision has many advantges, as
> mentioned in the thread already. IMHO it'd be best to just switch as
> much as possible over to supervise-daemon before 3.13.

But that would not give sysadmin/user the choice to die on error, which
I fear will lead to nobody caring if the services are buggy or not. The
"fix" is to restart the service.

> I'd rather not
> maintain two different sets of init scripts if possible.

I agree with this.

How about we fix supervise-daemon to accept an option or env var to
respawn?

-nc