Received: from nc-smtp2.sdv.fr (nc-smtp2.sdv.fr [212.95.69.92]) by nld3-dev1.alpinelinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C3686781D5E for <~alpine/devel@lists.alpinelinux.org>; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 21:12:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from skarnet.org (140.156.124.78.rev.sfr.net [78.124.156.140]) by nc-smtp2.sdv.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 6A2A2A06D6 for <~alpine/devel@lists.alpinelinux.org>; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 23:12:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 17351 invoked from network); 20 Aug 2020 23:12:47 +0200 Received: from elzian.internal.skarnet.org. (HELO ?192.168.0.2?) () by sinay.internal.skarnet.org. with SMTP; 20 Aug 2020 23:12:47 +0200 From: "Laurent Bercot" To: ~alpine/devel@lists.alpinelinux.org Subject: Re: Use of supervise-daemon in Alpine Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 21:12:21 +0000 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <3LLUI2KOULSYM.359WA6HATX45B@8pit.net> Reply-To: "Laurent Bercot" User-Agent: eM_Client/8.0.3382.0 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-VR-SPAMSTATE: OK X-VR-SPAMSCORE: 0 X-VR-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduiedruddutddgleduucetufdoteggodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfpfgfogfftkfevteeunffgpdfqfgfvnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhhrfgggtgfgsehtqhertddtreejnecuhfhrohhmpedfnfgruhhrvghnthcuuegvrhgtohhtfdcuoehskhgrqdguvghvvghlsehskhgrrhhnvghtrdhorhhgqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeekueetleefffdtvdegieeikeeluefglefgteeijedufedthefhfeegffetudehteenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhhouggvpehsmhhtphhouhht Back in 2015, I was pushing Alpine to move to a supervision system, I packaged s6 for Alpine, and unless something happened that I'm not aware of, it's still working out of the box. I spent a lot of time on IRC trying to convince developers of the virtues of supervision, and of s6 in particular. What I gathered from the conversations was that there *was* theoretical interest, but moving to a supervision system was not work that the devs wanted to prioritize; if I wanted the move to happen, I would have to put in the work myself. I had other obligations at the time, so I did not prioritize the work either - so the subject remained unresolved. I was not made to feel, though, that the door had been closed. I am glad to see that Alpine is finally coming around and embracing the supervision model. However, I wonder why you are choosing supervision-daemon, which is technically inferior, when s6 has been available on Alpine for years and when I have always signalled my desire to help migrate. I have to admit that it feels slightly unpleasant to have been pushing for a solution for *years* and always been met with very tepid enthusiasm, and today, at the first mention of supervise-daemon, there is immediate approval and you are going to switch right away. If for some reason Alpine was never going to switch to s6, had an issue not with the concept, but with the implementation, or with me, which is what this suggestion seems to impliy, then it would have been good expectation management to be honest and say it from the get go. If, however, my interpretation is wrong, I am *still* available to help with a migration to s6, and will actually have time starting in September to do the grunt work with the Alpine init scripts. -- Laurent