Bug#993953: RFS: runit/2.1.2-43 -- system-wide service supervision
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: plorenzo@disroot.org
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "runit":
* Package name : runit
Version : 2.1.2-43
Upstream Author : Gerrit Pape <pape@smarden.org>
* URL : http://smarden.org/runit/
* License : GPL-3+, BSD-3-clause
* Vcs : https://salsa.debian.org/debian/runit
Section : admin
It builds those binary packages:
runit-init - system-wide service supervision (as init system)
getty-run - runscripts to supervise getty processes
runit-systemd - transitional package for runit-systemd users
runit-run - service supervision (systemd and sysv integration)
runit - system-wide service supervision
To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL:
https://mentors.debian.net/package/runit/
Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command:
dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/r/runit/runit_2.1.2-43.dsc
Git repo:
https://salsa.debian.org/debian/runit/-/tree/next
Changes since the last upload:
runit (2.1.2-43) unstable; urgency=medium
.
* default-syslog: add a comment in the run file to
clarify the intended usage.
* Move the nosync file back to /etc/runit/:
it was moved to /run by mistake (Closes: #993602)
+ thanks to András Korn
* Stop using sysv-rc in stage 3: 'run_sysv_scripts' can
be easily used for shutdown tasks
* Adjust runit-init Depends:
- drop sysv-rc: it's still impossible to remove it because
of initscripts
- add insserv, it's needed to get the right boot sequence
for initscripts and sysvinit scripts
- bump the minimal required runit version to 2.1.2-43,
because of changes in 'run_sysv_scripts' and stage 3
* Update runit-init and runit-systemd description
* source only changes:
- move all contrib services under debian/sv
- stop patching upstream stage{1,2}, we already
maintain our version of stage{1,2,3} in d/contrib
- rename quilt patches to match the order in which
they are applied
Regards,
--
Lorenzo Puliti
Reply to: