zlacker

>>todsac+(OP)
I would like a comparison with runit, which is a very minimal but almost full-fledged init system. I see many similarities: control directories, no declarative dependencies, a similar set of scripts, the same approach to logging. The page mentions runit in passing, and even suggests using the chpst utility from it.

One contrasting feature is parametrized services: several similar processes (like agetty) can be controlled by one service directory; I find it neat.

Another difference is the ability to initiate reboot or shutdown as an action of the same binary (nitroctl).

Also, it's a single binary; runit has several.

>>nine_k+0k
I've gotten used to runit via Void Linux, and while it does the job of an init system, its UI and documentation leave something to be desired. The way logging is configured in particular was an exercise in frustration the last time I tried to set it up for a service.

I wouldn't mind trying something else that is as simple, but has sane defaults, better documentation, and a more intuitive UI.

>>imiric+Nm
runit doesn't always take care of services it manages in the same way as a proper init . From the man page:

"If runsvdir receives a TERM signal, it exits with 0 immediately"

>>cbzbc+7G
This is by design.

runsvdir receiving TERM should only happen when stage 2 is triggered to end.

Once that happens, the individual runsv processes are still supervising their individual tasks and can be requested to stop through their respective control sockets. It's how standard stage 3 is implemented.