Re: GNU nohup oddness

["Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@brasslantern.com>]

On Dec 12, 10:39am, Peter Stephenson wrote:
} Subject: Re: GNU nohup oddness
}
} "Bart Schaefer" wrote:
} > With signal_ignore(SIGHUP) any jobs started by that zsh _probably_ will
} > also ignore HUP -- but without opts[HUP] = 0, zsh still kill()s all jobs
} > at exit.  So with the patch above, background jobs _may_ die when the
} > script exits, even if the nohup wrapper was used to start the script.
} 
} But only if they explicitly arrange to handle HUP, right?

Yes.  It also just occurred to me that they'll definitely die if the zsh
script explicitly installs a HUP trap (unless the job arranges to ignore).

} I would have said this was marginally preferable, but I'm really just
} sticking my finger in the air.

Me, too; I'm comfortable with making the minimal change to follow zsh's
parent, but as we're changing a behavior of many years' standing, it'd
be nice if we only had to change it once.

-- 
Bart Schaefer                                 Brass Lantern Enterprises
http://www.well.com/user/barts              http://www.brasslantern.com

Zsh: http://www.zsh.org | PHPerl Project: http://phperl.sourceforge.net