Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 17:05:06 +1200 From: Jonathan Chen <Jonathan.Chen@itouch.co.nz> To: Joshua Delong Thomas <jdt2101@ksu.edu> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Application Dependencies (Not make dependencies) Message-ID: <20000508170506.B1033@jonc.ntdns.wilsonandhorton.co.n> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.21L.0005072216530.18944-100000@unix1.cc.ksu.edu>; from jdt2101@ksu.edu on Sun, May 07, 2000 at 10:17:51PM -0500 References: <20000508092414.C685@jonc.ntdns.wilsonandhorton.co.n> <Pine.GSO.4.21L.0005072216530.18944-100000@unix1.cc.ksu.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, May 07, 2000 at 10:17:51PM -0500, Joshua Delong Thomas wrote: > I was under the impression that this is not true for linux. Just in idle > curiosity, would you happen to know why the difference? The critical difference is how the xterm's shell responds when the session dies. With csh or tcsh, programs running in background do not receive a NOHUP signal; with sh (and perhaps bash), they do. So unless the application specifically handles or masks NOHUP, they will terminate. > > On Sun, May 07, 2000 at 03:38:11PM -0500, Joshua Delong Thomas wrote: > > > When I start an app in an xterm, it should be completely dependent upon > > > the xterm running, right? I'm curious because I run apps from > > > an xterm and I send it to the background, and when I close the xterm the > > > process continues running. Is that supposed to happen? > > > > Yes, if you're not running sh(1). If you're running sh(1), when the xterm > > dies, a NOHUP signal is sent to the application. > > -- > > Jonathan Chen <jonathan.chen@itouch.co.nz> > > -- Jonathan Chen <jonathan.chen@itouch.co.nz> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000508170506.B1033>