From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3691 invoked from network); 12 Dec 2002 15:34:37 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.247.90) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 12 Dec 2002 15:34:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 1770 invoked by alias); 12 Dec 2002 15:34:27 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 18003 Received: (qmail 1758 invoked from network); 12 Dec 2002 15:34:26 -0000 From: "Bart Schaefer" Message-Id: <1021212153356.ZM23831@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 15:33:56 +0000 In-Reply-To: <19293.1039689560@csr.com> Comments: In reply to Peter Stephenson "Re: GNU nohup oddness" (Dec 12, 10:39am) References: <19293.1039689560@csr.com> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (5.0.0 30July97) To: Peter Stephenson , zsh-workers@sunsite.dk (Zsh hackers list) Subject: Re: GNU nohup oddness MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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