From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Wed,  5 Sep 2012 15:03:15 -0400
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <7f66761786b55c8424df8a6269d32000@brasstown.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <a5e5dcc8bae684a61a1112a8f0504870@rei2.9hal>
References: <a5e5dcc8bae684a61a1112a8f0504870@rei2.9hal>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] rfork(RFPROC|RFNOMNT)
Topicbox-Message-UUID: b6d7292c-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Mon Aug 27 13:04:38 EDT 2012, cinap_lenrek@gmx.de wrote:
> small additional note. RFPROC|RFNOMNT alone makes no difference
> of course as parent and child will share the same pgrp. but
> with RFNAMEG or RFCNAMEG it makes a difference.
>
> the number of programs that use this combination is probably
> very small. it was triggered with irc7 which is not part of
> the plan9 distribution.

thanks, good catch.

- erik