Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 08:27:50 +0100 From: Brian Somers <brian@awfulhak.org> To: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> Cc: Tom <tom@uniserve.com>, Chuck Robey <chuckr@glue.umd.edu>, =?KOI8-R?B?4c7E0sXKIP7F0s7P1w==?= <ache@nagual.pp.ru>, FreeBSD-current <current@FreeBSD.ORG>, Brian Somers <brian@awfulhak.org>, Joerg Wunsch <joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de> Subject: Re: ppp & HUP. Message-ID: <199707040727.IAA00773@awfulhak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 03 Jul 1997 12:39:56 PDT." <33BC000C.61133CF4@whistle.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Tom wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 2 Jul 1997, Chuck Robey wrote:
> >
> > > According to what I read, the HUP was to allow processes to be able to
> > > exit gracefully (and more slowly, perhaps saving state) than the SIGTERM.
> > > I think the HUP is kinda historical. I can't see a strong reason to kill
> > > it, because I've never personally seen a bug caused by it.
> >
> > Exactly what processes actually exit upon receiving a HUP? Not many.
> > Apparently only some user processes. Daemons NEVER exit, instead they
> > thrash the system. Ugh.
> >
> >
>
> shells exit on HUP but not TERM
> from my experience.
Shells are also usually spawned indirectly from ttys and get a HUP
for that reason. Andrey isn't suggesting changing that behaviour.
--
Brian <brian@awfulhak.org>, <brian@freebsd.org>
<http://www.awfulhak.org>;
Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour....
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199707040727.IAA00773>