Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 08:27:30 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> Cc: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cannot print to remote printer Message-ID: <3B5307E2.6E26B445@mindspring.com> References: <lth8zikptx0.wl@hunter.munich.sgi.com> <p05101003b759266483c2@> <p05101003b759266483c2@[128.113.24.47]> <873d83pquy.wl@wilhelm.noname> <20010711214311.C2855@heechee.tobez.org> <200107120645.f6C6jtP45267@uriah.heep.sax.de> <20010712122148.B10960@heechee.tobez.org> <86k81eaqcj.fsf@hades.hell.gr> <200107122117.f6CLHsl43063@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> <3B4F3485.DE6DC3E5@mindspring.com> <20010714014914.A7876@hades.hell.gr> <200107141705.f6EH5c802083@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Garrett Wollman wrote: > > I'm not sure about POSIX, but the manpage of nohup does not mention > > SIGCHLD. The only signals I see mentioned in revision 1.8 of nohup.1 > > are SIGHUP and SIGQUIT. > > That is correct. SIGCHLD is entirely irrelevant to `nohup', as the > slightest amount of effort on Terry's part would have made clear. This is the answer I was asking for: is SIGCHLD "special", and thus treated differently, or is this applicable to all signals? I would be alarmed, if we were to treat different signals differently, which it seems you are advising. The reason I mentioned "nohup" is that the behaviour you are specifying, if applied to SIGHUP as well as SIGCHLD, would break "nohup". So if "nohup" is intended to continue to function as it has historically, then this change appears pretty arbitrary; at the very least, it complicates the signals API domain specific knowledge required to use the thing, which is annoying, to say the least. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3B5307E2.6E26B445>