Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > So this would work like bash's `disown -h'?
I think it's stronger than disown -h. Not that I'm an expert, but my impression is that disown -h merely arranges for the subprocess to continue undisturbed even if Bash is HUPped. But Solaris 'nohup -p 27' makes process 27 immune to nohup, regardless of 27's parent. I suspect it does this by pretending to be a debugger, attaching to process 27, and then causing the process to execute the equivalent of 'signal (SIGHUP, SIG_IGN)'. Hairy, huh? Perhaps disown -h is enough to solve the original requester's problem, and the original requester can be convinced to use bash. In that case we're done already. If not, then it's a reasonable request though I don't want to be the poor schmoe who has to implement it. Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > You don't need nohup for that. Background processes will just continue > running after logout. That's true for many shells, but not all. It's not true for a POSIX-compliant sh, as far as I can tell from reading the standard. _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
