[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: The inittab interface - Re: Bug#766187: runit: Fails to install runit after fresh install of jessie beta2

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 09:20:46AM +0000, Gerrit Pape wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 08:29:54AM -0400, Nikolay Hristov wrote:
> > Setting up runit (2.1.2-1) ...
> > grep: /etc/inittab: No such file or directory
> > grep: /etc/inittab: No such file or directory
> > cp: cannot stat ‘/etc/inittab’: No such file or directory
> > dpkg: error processing package runit (--configure):
> >  subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1
> > Errors were encountered while processing:
> >  runit
> > E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)

> Since ages runit hooks into /etc/inittab to provide system wide service
> supervision.  As long as sysvinit provided /etc/inittab and was
> essential this simply worked.  Now on fresh jessie install, no
> /etc/inittab is created at all.  While this alone wouldn't be a problem,
> because runit provides a simple systemd unit after I learned that
> there's no backward compatibility to the /etc/inittab interface, it is a
> problem when switching such an installation from systemd to sysvinit:
> When switching to sysvinit, the /etc/inittab file is created, but
> doesn't include the lines enabling the runit supervision.  After reboot
> runit supervision will not be enabled, although the package is
> installed.  This would be a grave bug as other packages depend on this
> assumption.
> Any idea on how to fix this?

This is far from ideal, but the only easy fix I came up with until now
is to copy debian/share/inittab* from the sysvinit source package, as
well as the debian/rules logic to install a system-specific inittab
template and the postinst logic to create /etc/inittab if it does not
exist, into the runit package.

A better fix certainly will need more thoughts, coordination, and
testing, which I'm afraid I can't work on currently.  Anyone?

Regards, Gerrit.

Reply to: