From owner-freebsd-current Sat Mar 22 16:39:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA10703 for current-outgoing; Sat, 22 Mar 1997 16:39:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.50]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA10698 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 1997 16:39:18 -0800 (PST) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id RAA19751; Sat, 22 Mar 1997 17:26:33 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199703230026.RAA19751@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: 2.2R (src 2.2 211): == dialing To: rb@gid.co.uk (Bob Bishop) Date: Sat, 22 Mar 1997 17:26:33 -0700 (MST) Cc: terry@lambert.org, joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de, freebsd-current@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: from "Bob Bishop" at Mar 22, 97 10:24:07 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > >> The SIGHUP was historically intended to 'hang up' sessions on serial ports. > >> Processes not attached to a terminal shouldn't be sent the signal. > > > >That was my impression reading this exchange as well. > > > >I think we still have issues with propagation of signals to the > >other processes in a process group when the group leader is signalled, > >as well. > > Quite likely; but I think that's a separate issue. That depends on how the shutdown is sending it's SIGHUP to everybody. REgards Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.