Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 11:04:48 +0200 From: Gary Jennejohn <garyj@peedub.muc.de> To: Jonathan Chen <Jonathan.Chen@itouch.co.nz> Cc: Joshua Delong Thomas <jdt2101@ksu.edu>, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Application Dependencies (Not make dependencies) Message-ID: <200005080904.LAA51529@peedub.muc.de> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 08 May 2000 17:05:06 %2B1200." <20000508170506.B1033@jonc.ntdns.wilsonandhorton.co.n>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jonathan Chen writes: >On Sun, May 07, 2000 at 10:17:51PM -0500, Joshua Delong Thomas wrote: >> I was under the impression that this is not true for linux. Just in idle >> curiosity, would you happen to know why the difference? > >The critical difference is how the xterm's shell responds when the >session dies. With csh or tcsh, programs running in background do not >receive a NOHUP signal; with sh (and perhaps bash), they do. So unless >the application specifically handles or masks NOHUP, they will terminate. > There's no such thing as a NOHUP signal. I assume you mean HUP here. Bash seems to set HUP to be ignored when it places a process in the background. --- Gary Jennejohn / garyj@muc.de gj@freebsd.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200005080904.LAA51529>