On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 20:03:17 -0400
Steve Litt <slitt_at_troubleshooters.com> wrote:
> But most of the other suggestions that in my opinion are just answers
> to systemd weenie's "but s6 doesn't have _____" arguments, and don't
> add nearly enough functionality or convenience for the complexity, or
> just plain size added to the user manual, to justify.
>
> The OP already stated there's a way to do it currently. Why complexify
> s6 to do something already doable?
I just miss the elegance of the solution: I personally want to model
one service with one s6 service. For me it would mean thinking about a
wrapper around s6 to get that. Maybe I get now the slew thing.
And it's ok to need a wrapper to get useability, but the
advertisement of that should be better on the website that you SHOULD
use that wrapper (and for me this wrapper should be part of the s6
project).
Best Regards
Oli
--
Automatic-Server AG •••••
Oliver Schad
Geschäftsführer
Turnerstrasse 2
9000 St. Gallen | Schweiz
www.automatic-server.com | oliver.schad_at_automatic-server.com
Tel: +41 71 511 31 11 | Mobile: +41 76 330 03 47
Received on Fri Oct 23 2020 - 07:27:53 UTC