From owner-freebsd-current Fri Jul 4 00:38:22 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id AAA13804 for current-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 00:38:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from awfulhak.demon.co.uk (awfulhak.demon.co.uk [158.152.17.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id AAA13795 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 00:38:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from awfulhak.demon.co.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by awfulhak.demon.co.uk (8.8.6/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA00773; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 08:27:50 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <199707040727.IAA00773@awfulhak.demon.co.uk> X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.9 8/22/96 To: Julian Elischer cc: Tom , Chuck Robey , =?KOI8-R?B?4c7E0sXKIP7F0s7P1w==?= , FreeBSD-current , Brian Somers , Joerg Wunsch Subject: Re: ppp & HUP. In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 03 Jul 1997 12:39:56 PDT." <33BC000C.61133CF4@whistle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 08:27:50 +0100 From: Brian Somers Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > 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 , Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour....