Hmm, is that desirable? If someone's going around sending SIGTERM to random processes they might also send SIGKILL, and there's no way Nitro can propagate SIGKILL to processes it starts.
It does, because SIGTERM is traditionally understood as the trigger for a shutdown. Docker - for instance - will send a SIGTERM to pid 1 when a container is stopped - which goes back to a previous comment here about using a real init as pid 1 if the thing in your container forks: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44990092
Interesting! I didn't know that—I thought that when you told sysvinit to change its runlevel you normally used some slightly richer interface than signals.
Hmm, is that desirable? If someone's going around sending SIGTERM to random processes they might also send SIGKILL, and there's no way Nitro can propagate SIGKILL to processes it starts.
It does, because SIGTERM is traditionally understood as the trigger for a shutdown. Docker - for instance - will send a SIGTERM to pid 1 when a container is stopped - which goes back to a previous comment here about using a real init as pid 1 if the thing in your container forks: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44990092
Interesting! I didn't know that—I thought that when you told sysvinit to change its runlevel you normally used some slightly richer interface than signals.
It does if you use SIGHUP.