2008/11/20 Neale Pickett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Neale Pickett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> "Anselm R Garbe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> Well, I remember there was a problem with the SIGCHLD signal handler, >>> I need to recheck with Stevens tomorrow. It might be that this was on >>> some ancient UNIX though. But the double-fork is definately the most >>> portable solution. >> >> I assert that my SIGCHLD solution is just as portable as the >> double-fork, and is more appropriate, since the double-fork is usually >> only done in daemons. > > So what's the verdict on this?
I'm fine to add it in 5.3, since it seems to work quite well. Kind regards, Anselm
