Bug#1050016: RFS: runit/2.1.2-56 -- system-wide service supervision
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "runit":
* Package name : runit
Version : 2.1.2-56
Upstream contact : Gerrit Pape <pape@smarden.org>
* URL : http://smarden.org/runit/
* License : BSD-3-clause, CC0-1.0, GPL-3+
* Vcs : https://salsa.debian.org/debian/runit
Section : admin
The source builds the following binary packages:
runit - system-wide service supervision
runit-run - service supervision (systemd and sysv integration)
runit-systemd - transitional package for runit-systemd users
getty-run - runscripts to supervise getty processes
runit-init - system-wide service supervision (as init system)
To access further information about this package, please visit the
following URL:
https://mentors.debian.net/package/runit/
Alternatively, you can download the package with 'dget' using this
command:
dget -x
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/r/runit/runit_2.1.2-56.dsc
Git repo:
https://salsa.debian.org/debian/runit/-/tree/next?ref_type=heads
Changes since the last upload:
runit (2.1.2-56) experimental; urgency=medium
.
* cpsv:
- revert "cpsv: use sv.current symlink as source"
- use sv.src symlink as source for runscript
* runit.preinst:
- fix wrong target for sv.current link
- create sv.src link to make cpsv source configurable
* trigger_sv:
- maintain a runtime copy of services in sv.now
- add a hook to atomically update services
- look both in /etc and /usr to enable a service,
/etc/sv/ is always preferred
* 40-runit: also test /usr/share/runit/sv.current
* update-service:
- look in /usr/ and /etc/ for services;
- stop requiring full path;
- prefer services in /etc/ over services in /usr:
* run_sysv_script: check /etc/service instead of /etc/sv
(Closes: #1022837)
* runit-init: drop obsolete Replaces without Breaks
* runit: duplicate triggers as mitigation for usrmerge.
+ Thanks to Helmut Grohne <helmut@subdivi.de>
(Closes: #1043419)
* d/rules: fix FTBFS after successful build
(Closes: #1046998)
Regards,
Lorenzo
Reply to: