-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 04:32:51PM +0200, Nicolas George wrote: > Le primidi 21 germinal, an CCXXV, to...@tuxteam.de a écrit : > > > Your other arguments make sense, but sorry, this one does not. The > > > process with PID one is the only immortal process on the system, and > > > adopts all orphan processes. For that reason, any kind of process > > > monitoring, if it needs reliability, must be rooted in PID 1. And in > > > turn, that makes process monitoring in scope for any project that aims > > > to implement a program for PID 1. > > > > Runit works. Think about how :-) > > No need to think how: runit takes PID 1. You prove my point.
Just one of the possible usage patterns. > (runit can also be integrated with the rudimentary monitoring of SysV > init: hacks upon hacks) As do PostgreSQL, where the postmaster manages all its children, or Apache, or sshd. All hacks upon hacks. C'm on. regards - -- tomás -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAljr1xMACgkQBcgs9XrR2kZJ/wCfSDElfroVJGIsqEFsMh0zB0mU 05kAn2aqv5AP1Bq5+401TWqghNrY5+qY =qa8g -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
