The point was who the heck sends the SIGHUP and why ?
Poul-Henning
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Sheldon Hearn writes:
>
>[Hi-jacked from cvs-committers and cvs-all]
>
>On Wed, 21 Jul 1999 18:15:09 +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
>> There is another one you may want to look at, I have not figured it
>> out yet:
>>
>> I try to start a ntpd from /etc/rc.local this way:
>>
>> nohup /usr/local/bin/ntpd -d -d > /usr/ntp/x.ntpd 2>&1 &
>>
>>and it invariably ends up dead in a few seconds with:
>
>> Jul 17 12:26:39 <ntp.notice> bogon ntpd[248]: ntpd exiting on signal 1
>
>Can nohup really prevent processes from trapping SIGHUP? I thought it
>just set the SIGUP handler to discard and hoped for the best.
>
>Xntpd in the base system explicitly requests its graceful termination
>function, called finish(), be loaded as the SIGHUP handler.
>
>What is it you'd like?
>
> 1) nohup should prevent processes from trapping SIGHUP.
> 2) xntpd should reconfigure on SIGHUP.
> 3) xntpd is getting a SIGHUP and you're not sure where from.
> 4) xntpd is different from the port's ntpd in some way that
> should change.
>
>Ciao,
>Sheldon.
>
--
Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member
[EMAIL PROTECTED] "Real hackers run -current on their laptop."
FreeBSD -- It will take a long time before progress goes too far!
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message