>I've started thinking that I wouldn't need to abandon use of 'sv'. With
>both runit and s6 installed, and a supervision tree of s6-svscan and
>s6-supervise processes, I suspect that 'sv t ...' would still work. 'sv
>status ...' on the other hand might not. I would need to study the
>control
>fifo protocol and status file layout to be sure.
sv status will not work, because the status file has a different
format in s6 and in runit.
sv t and others? It may work; it may not. If you try this, it's on
you: the interface between s6-svc and s6-supervise is not public and
is not guaranteed stable. Generally speaking, using the tools of one
supervision suite on another one isn't something I think is worth
spending effort on.
--
Laurent
Received on Sat Jan 13 2018 - 18:55:16 UTC