Derek Price <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > (That code shouldn't have been calling vfork() originally, strictly, > since it did things before it called execvp - I guess it just happened > to work).
Yes, that must be it; I hadn't thought through all the consequences of using vfork rather than fork. Thanks very much for tracking this all down. I'm looking forward to updating the CVS FAQ and retiring my copy of ssh4cvs. _______________________________________________ Bug-cvs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-cvs
