Re: [atomic-devel] Has anyone considered packaging dumb-init or tini for

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 4:38 PM, Muayyad AlSadi <alsadi gmail com> wrote:

I've packaged dumb-init, it's in copr
And there was a package review for official repos

> Anyone using these today?

yes, I use it along with oneway < https://github.com/muayyad-alsadi/oneway/releases/

> What does dumb-init or tini get me that systemd doesn't?

simply dumb init does not thing, it's just exec a single process (the docker way which is single process per container)

so instead of start.sh we use dumb-init start.sh

it's not intended to do what sysvinit / systemd / upstart do
it just fork then exec it's argument, the parent process just handle defunct processes

> I am skeptical of any "resource" argument against systemd

it does not do any management (the dumb part of it's name)

> I think multiple init systems will just generate more technical questions

please give it a chance, not because we need another init system, but because it's NOT an init system.
it just run a single process (look at supervisord which is in the official repo, is more close to be an init system than dumb-init)

> Doesn't work in Kubernetes today.

I do use it with k8s!

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Clayton Coleman <ccoleman redhat com> wrote:
Doesn't work in Kubernetes today.

> On Mar 7, 2017, at 2:44 AM, Marius Vollmer <marius vollmer redhat com> wrote:
>
>
> Clayton Coleman <ccoleman redhat com> writes:
>
>> [...] Anyone using these today?
>
> What about "docker run --init"? Anything wrong with that?

Re: [atomic-devel] Has anyone considered packaging dumb-init or tini for use in Fedora/CentOS/RHEL?