From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17679 invoked from network); 4 Nov 2002 19:22:43 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.247.90) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 4 Nov 2002 19:22:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 7421 invoked by alias); 4 Nov 2002 19:22:31 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 17902 Received: (qmail 7407 invoked from network); 4 Nov 2002 19:22:28 -0000 To: Peter Stephenson Cc: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk Subject: Re: Inconsistent signal handling? References: <29890.1036418650@csr.com> From: Philippe Troin Date: 04 Nov 2002 11:22:23 -0800 In-Reply-To: <29890.1036418650@csr.com> Message-ID: <87bs55i1hs.fsf@ceramic.fifi.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: Philippe Troin Peter Stephenson writes: > Philippe Troin wrote: > > [1] Why do we ignore SIGTERM on interactive sessions? That sounds > > like a bad idea to me. > > We restore SIGTERM to the default in entersubsh(), i.e. for all spawned > programmes. So the intent seems to be that only the parent shell > ignores it. Yes, I've never said that programs launched by zsh had SIGTERM blocked or ignored. But I was wondering what was the rationale behind ignoring SIGTERM within zsh? I've always been annoyed at not being able to kill zsh with SIGTERM and having to send SIGHUP (or whatever-signal-of-the-day). BTW what is your opinion about the rest of the patch? Phil.