From owner-freebsd-questions Mon May 8 6:29: 0 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from peedub.muc.de (p3E9B8F4A.dip.t-dialin.net [62.155.143.74]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AB0137B8C8 for ; Mon, 8 May 2000 06:28:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from garyj@peedub.muc.de) Received: from peedub.muc.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by peedub.muc.de (8.9.3/8.6.9) with ESMTP id LAA51529; Mon, 8 May 2000 11:04:48 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <200005080904.LAA51529@peedub.muc.de> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999 To: Jonathan Chen Cc: Joshua Delong Thomas , freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Application Dependencies (Not make dependencies) Reply-To: Gary Jennejohn In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 08 May 2000 17:05:06 +1200." <20000508170506.B1033@jonc.ntdns.wilsonandhorton.co.n> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 11:04:48 +0200 From: Gary Jennejohn Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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