On Monday 15 October 2007 22:08, Alexander Kriegisch wrote: > Before I test the patch, one more question: Do I always have to user > "-K" to get the desired behaviour? should telnetd not behave like other > implementations? I would rather implement a switch if for people who > like to have a different behaviour. > > Beside finding it a bit annoying to set that switch, it would not be a > problem to set it in situations under my control, but as other > applications also start telnetd - why this is so, would lead us too far > astray, so I refrain from explaining the whys, how and wheres - there > are situations beyond my control. > > I regard this issue a bug, just because of the unexpected behaviour > which is also different from other telnetds, not because I think your > implementation is bad.
I want to avoid tug-of-war between groups of users which may want different behavior. So far I simply don't know which behavior is considered "right" or "usual". Thus I am giving users an option, but do not force them to use it. Which "other" telnetd implementations did you try? What do they do when you login and do $ sleep 10 & exit ? At the very least, it is trivial for you now to hack the source so that -K is always on. If you want, you may also send a patch which makes it a CONFIG choice. Or maybe I will try a few other telnetd's out there and if they all (or majority of them) do -K thing, I can make it the default. -- vda _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
