Re: runit SIGPWR support

From: John W Higgins <>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 15:38:26 -0800

Good Day,

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 3:18 PM Laurent Bercot <>

> >That's a win-win
> Lengthening the supervision tree in the container and using more RAM
> just to save writing one line in a configuration file does not seem
> like a win to me.
> ... Besides, runit will refuse to run if it's not pid 1, so that
> wouldn't work.
I don't generally question people that are this far above my weight class
on a topic - but I'm pretty sure this [1] implies that pid 1 is not a

I'm also confused why my suggestion would be put down so harshly outside of
the possible pid 1 issue.

If one doesn't want to require a user of their lxc image to modify the
config - but wants to use runit - what I suggested certainly would fit that
core requirement. I made no suggestion that it was perfect - but it was an
option for someone that views the reality of changing a line in a config
file differently than I would.

I have a boat load of issues with things that I work with that consume way
more time than should be necessary. I also happened to remember having seen
an init that allowed signal remapping in the past.

This smallest amount of empathy for a fellow bike shed painter meant that I
offered up what I remembered.

My apologies for the noise.

John W Higgins

[1] -
Received on Fri Feb 14 2020 - 23:38:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sun May 09 2021 - 19:44:19 UTC