Re: dependant services

From: Avery Payne <avery.p.payne_at_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 14:46:12 -0700

On 4/21/2015 2:19 PM, Buck Evan wrote:
> Does s6 (or friends) have first-class support for dependant services?
I know that runit and daemontools do not. I do know that nosh has
direct support for this. I believe s6 supports it through various
intermediary tools, i.e. using socket activation to bring services up,
so you could say that while it supports it directly and provides a full
guarantee, it's not "first class" in the sense that you can simply
provide a list of "bring these up first" and it will do it out of the
box. The recently announced anopa init system fills in this gap and
makes it "first class", in the sense that you can simply provide the
names of definitions that need to start and everything else is handled
for you.

> Alternatively, are there general-purpose practices for breaking this kind
> of dependency?
Strange as it sounds, renaming the child definition of a dependency
chain (which typically translates into the directory name of the
defintion) seems to be a regular issue. Changing the name of the
definition typically causes various "links" to break, causing the parent
service to be unable to locate its children by name at start-up.
Received on Tue Apr 21 2015 - 21:46:12 UTC