What 'dependency' means in Unix init systems is underspecified

Re:What 'dependency' means in Unix init systems is underspec... by toast0 on Sunday October 28, 2018 @12:24AM (#18319173)

If you want the service supervised, there's supervisord or daemontools or while true ; do flakeyserver; done.

On the other hand, some servers are expected to work, and if they crash, it should be investigated, because it's probably a big deal. In my experience auto-restart goes hand in hand with never investigate why it restarts. Sometimes that's appropriate (for software you basically have to run, but don't control), but more often it's terrible.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:What 'dependency' means in Unix init systems is underspec... by newacctjhro on Sunday October 28, 2018 @03:19AM (#18319503)

> If you want the service supervised, there's supervisord or daemontools or while true ; do flakeyserver; done.

Or systemd, which is fine for many use cases.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:What 'dependency' means in Unix init systems is underspec... by toast0 on Sunday October 28, 2018 @11:31AM (#18321056)

1) can you use systemd to supervise a single process without adopting most of systemd?

2) based on the train of horrors for every single network daemon they write, do you trust that their systems level code is somehow good?

3) well their record on systems level code isn't that great either, username parsing really didn't go well

4) is systemd demonstrating engineering excellence of as simple as possible, but no simpler?

5) out of the box, my experience with Debian + systemd + a crashy service (from packages) was that the specific crashes I was getting didn't result in a restart, because it got a segfault instead of simply exiting. --- also, it changed the boot process so I couldn't ctrl-c out of slow things, so that was net negative.

[ Parent | on HN ]