Init Patch for review and evaluation

[Eugene Bordenkircher]

On Sun, 2007-12-23 at 00:39 +0000, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> On Saturday 22 December 2007 22:42, Eugene Bordenkircher wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > The following patch to init fills a need that myself and several of my
> > co-workers have.  The general idea is to have init kill those processes
> > that have been removed from the inittab file after it has received a
> > SIGHUP.  Currently, init will let them continue to run, but will not
> > respawn them if they die.
> >
> > The changes were added as a selectable feature in the busybox config.
> > Hopefully the patch will help others as well.
> >
> > Please respond with any comments/concerns/suggestions to help clarify or
> > improve the implementation.
> 
> Sorry. I don't think that this is worth doing.
> 
> The patch itself is not bad, the idea of "fixing" init is.
> 
> I would like to ask you to read the following:
> 
> http://busybox.net/~vda/init_vs_runsv.html
> 
> If you think my arguments are flawed, feel free to let
> me know your thoughts.
> --
> vda

Fair enough,

The patch was never intended as a 'fix', more of an optional feature.

Your arguments against init and for runit seem fairly sound to me.  To
be honest, I've never had the opportunity to play with runit.  I will
try it in our device and see if it fits our needs better.

Eugene