Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 19:28:58 GMT From: Bob Bishop <rb@gid.co.uk> To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: terry@lambert.org, joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 2.2R (src 2.2 211): <ctrl><alt><del> == dialing Message-ID: <l03020909af5c85a567bb@[194.32.164.2]>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 7:13 pm -0000 23/3/97, Terry Lambert wrote: >I happen to disagree with the BSD interpretation of POSIX in this >regard. SVR4 is certified POSIX compliant, and they don't do what >we do: they propagate group SIGHUP to all process group members. >You can argue until you are blue in the face that SVR4 is "wrong", >but to prove it to me you will have to get an SVR4 box to fail >POSIX compliance testing. You can't argue with success. That's slightly off my point, which was that daemons (I probably mean something like "sessions with no controlling tty") shouldn't get signalled with HUP when multi-user operation is being ceased. Interactive sessions should, because interactive shells don't respond to TERM. I'll be going off into my POSIX sulk now... -- Bob Bishop (0118) 977 4017 international code +44 118 rb@gid.co.uk fax (0118) 989 4254 between 0800 and 1800 UK
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?l03020909af5c85a567bb>