From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1270 invoked from network); 12 Dec 2002 10:39:58 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.247.90) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 12 Dec 2002 10:39:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 16890 invoked by alias); 12 Dec 2002 10:39:50 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 18001 Received: (qmail 16875 invoked from network); 12 Dec 2002 10:39:49 -0000 To: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk (Zsh hackers list) Subject: Re: GNU nohup oddness In-reply-to: ""Bart Schaefer""'s message of "Thu, 12 Dec 2002 04:09:02 GMT." <1021212040902.ZM23331@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 10:39:20 +0000 Message-ID: <19293.1039689560@csr.com> From: Peter Stephenson "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? I would have said this was marginally preferable, but I'm really just sticking my finger in the air. -- Peter Stephenson Software Engineer CSR Ltd., Science Park, Milton Road, Cambridge, CB4 0WH, UK Tel: +44 (0)1223 692070 ********************************************************************** The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. **********************************************************************