Re: s6-linux-init without virtual consoles

From: Oliver Schad <>
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2023 09:59:39 +0000

Even I don't know if it's sarcastic or not: Laurent is the most accurate person I know when it comes to a personal thing like a one-man-software-project. Such a project FEELS personal, believe me.

He takes bugs and user needs serious and cares more or less immediatly about both without being paid. He acts like a paid programmer without being paid.

So what I would wish from you is to be able to feel that you honor that free work. It IS work for you and all of us. It says a lot about Laurents personallity.

And even IF Laurent would be sarcastic: it's the same personallity which gives you this beautiful software.

Compare that to systemd bug tracker and come back, kneeling, head down and saying "sorry master" ;-)

Best Regards

Am 7. Juni 2023 09:12:02 UTC schrieb
>"Laurent Bercot" <> writes:
>>>I think it would be fair to be able to configure s6-linux-init so that
>>>it does not rely on specific details about what hardware is available.
>> Then I have some good news for you: s6-linux-init already does not
>> rely on specific details about what hardware is available.
>> Because if it did, and assumed that you have a virtual console, and you
>> didn't, then it would crash. And you would be a very sad panda. And
>> so would I.
>> But it doesn't.
>> What you're seeing is known as a run-time test: the existence of a
>> /dev/tty0 device is tested. And if such a device exists, then s6-l-i
>> attempts to support kbrequest on it. See? conditional support. It's
>> nice and sweet and simple and has fewer failure cases (because the
>> more configuration switches you have, the more you risk human error.)
>No need to go sarcastic. Of-course I see that.
>But a run-time test does not need to spam the user-visible console with
>rather noisy warnings about missing features that was (on that system)
>never intended to be there.
>> When you don't have a virtual console, s6-l-i works perfectly fine.
>Yes, it works fine. But a warning is printed to console. And as it is so
>early, it is not going to the (catchall) logger, but on the physical
>> If there was no warning message, you would never have noticed the extra
>> system call, and you wouldn't be here asking for offline configuration
>> where online configuration works. But there is a warning message, and
>> that's what you don't like.
>> So yes, the problem you have *is* the warning message per se, not the
>> fact that s6-l-i performs one completely undetectable superflous open()
>> call in headless systems.
>I agree.
>> So let's talk about the message.
>> I agree it's not particularly elegant to print a warning on every boot
>> in a normal configuration. So it could be refined: if devtmpfs can be
>> relied on to always provide /dev/tty0 when a console exists, then
>> when there's no such device, instead of "warning: missing device",
>> s6-l-i could print "info: headless system detected".
>> I think that would be less scary than a "warning", and users of headless
>> and headful (?) systems could keep living together in peace and harmony.
>> What do you think?
>That would be better. And if we could have an option for setting the
>verbosity level, so that info level messages could be avoided, I would
>be really happy ;)

Automatic Server AG
Oliver Schad
Received on Wed Jun 07 2023 - 11:59:39 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed Jun 07 2023 - 12:00:11 CEST