Re: s6 instanced services are "forgotten" after s6-rc-update

From: Carlos Eduardo <>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2023 18:09:45 -0300

Agree on avoiding restarting old instances. If instances were atomic
services, s6-rc-update wouldn't restart them either.

OTOH, the template's files are copied, not symlinked, which means
restarting old instances will use the old template. Does this call for
an s6-instance-update program?

Em ter., 31 de jan. de 2023 às 08:08, Laurent Bercot
<> escreveu:
> >I can provide an strace of s6-rc-update if needed. Looking into it, it
> >seems s6-rc-update "uncritically" unlinks the live instance/ and instances/
> >folders and replaces them with brand-new copies from the compiled database.
> I can confirm that this happens and that it was an oversight; I'm now
> in the process of fixing it (which will involve a few changes to s6
> ending
> up in a major update, I'm afraid).
> A question I have is: what should s6-rc-update do when the template has
> changed? The template will obviously be changed in the new service, but
> should the old instances stay alive, with the old template? My natural
> inclinaton is to say yes; if the user wants the service restarted they
> can say so explicitly in the conversion file. But maybe there are better
> alternatives I haven't thought about.
> --
> Laurent
Received on Tue Jan 31 2023 - 22:09:45 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tue Jan 31 2023 - 22:10:27 CET