From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Aug 24 17:21:48 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from InterJet.elischer.org (c421509-a.pinol1.sfba.home.com [24.7.86.9]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F17F237B409; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 17:21:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: from localhost (localhost.elischer.org [127.0.0.1]) by InterJet.elischer.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA60817; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 17:35:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 17:35:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer To: Ben Smithurst Cc: Chris Costello , Mike Barcroft , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, Peter da Silva Subject: Re: Proposed Utility - detach(1) In-Reply-To: <20010824233404.I33784@strontium.shef.vinosystems.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG I thought that nohup() did that? I guess it's abit different... On Fri, 24 Aug 2001, Ben Smithurst wrote: > Chris Costello wrote: > > > On Friday, August 24, 2001, Mike Barcroft wrote: > >> I would appreciate comments on the usefulness of a utility which would > >> allow one to detach a process from a TTY. I imagine the utility would > >> be very small and just call daemon(3) and execlp(3). > >> > >> Would a utility like this be useful? Is this functionality already > >> available in a system utility? > > > > All shells implement this: > > > > sh: > > $ sleep 5 & > > $ > > [1] 61049 Exit 0 sleep 5 > > Err... putting a process in the background is quite different to > detaching it from the terminal. Or did I miss your point? > > -- > Ben Smithurst / ben@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD: The Power To Serve > http://www.FreeBSD.org/ > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message