On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 2:36 PM, martin f krafft <madd...@debian.org> wrote: > also sprach Victor Engmark <victor.engm...@gmail.com> [2011.11.24.1417 +0100]: >> I hope you're not just being facetious. I don't know why GNOME >> would decide that the current mode is better than the alternative, >> and judging by the rest of the discussion so do others. If you >> know then could you please enlighten us? > > I am not trying to be facetious. The reason is quite simply what you > are running up against right now: it is not possible to track > a process which backgrounds itself in a reliable manner. However, it > is trivial to background a process when calling it. The shell makes > it really easy, for instance, and it's not that much harder to do in > C or whatever other language. > > Since nobody should make any assumptions about how I call processes > (assumptions like "noone ever needs to know when this process is > running and when it terminates"), it is best to leave the user with > as many options as possible. And by the above logic, that is simply > not to background yourself. > > Note that there is no reason not to provide a --background or > --daemonise switch, but it should be the option, not the default. > A case can be made here for daemons, but not for foreground tools, > IMHO.
Completely agree. There didn't seem to be a bug report for this already, so I added one: <https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=664730>. -- Victor Engmark -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
