upstart as init in a chroot

[Brian J. Murrell]

On Sun, 2007-25-03 at 21:26 +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
>  
> Yes, the signal handling semantics are somewhat different, as well as
> pid#1 receiving signals for events such as Ctrl-Alt-Delete and the
> keyboard request signal.

Ahhh.  Yes indeed.  Those two I think I could live without in a chroot
though.

> This isn't the primary "special behaviour" that Upstart relies on
> though.  All processes must have a parent process, those processes
> spawned by init directly itself will have the parent as their own
> process id.

Ahhh.  Yes, right.  Now you are jogging my memory about init's special
relationship with the kernel.

> But processes that spawn another, and die (aka "daemons") will be
> reparented to be a child of pid#1.

Right.

> And when they die, pid#1 (init) receives SIGCHLD for that process.

Indeed.

> Without being pid#1, upstart would be unable to provide service
> supervision for daemon processes, since it would never receive SIGCHLD
> for them.

Right.  Gotcha.

I can see how your comments about an upstart in the host system could
communicate with an upstart in a chroot to provide those services.

Unfortunately even that would do me no good as I try to transition from
a Mandriva system to a Ubuntu system (i.e. by moving functionality from
the Mandriva host to the Ubuntu chrooted guest) as the Mandriva system
would not have upstart anyway.

I guess I will just have to start the services in the chroot from the
host.

Thanx for taking the time to jog my memory though.

b.

-- 
My other computer is your Microsoft Windows server.

Brian J. Murrell
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/upstart-devel/attachments/20070326/e0e9c746/attachment-0001.pgp