On 11 September 2012 11:47, Lex Trotman <ele...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11 September 2012 03:15, Dimitar Zhekov <dimitar.zhe...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 19:41:19 -0700 >> Matthew Brush <mbr...@codebrainz.ca> wrote: >> >>> On 12-09-09 05:23 PM, Lex Trotman wrote: >>> > [...] >>> > So can anyone describe a useful use-case for catching SIGTERM and >>> > potentially refusing to exit? And also for SIGINT. >>> > >> >> From what I see, signal_cb (used currently for SIGTERM only) looks like >> a naive attempt to replace the session management. That will never work, >> of course - either the WM will send a SIGKILL quickly (in 1-2 seconds), >> or the entire X will terminate, killing Geany. > > Thats my thoughts too, just wanting to see if anyone has any further info on > it. > >> >> BTW, I'm happy to inform all Xfce users here that it's session >> management was fixed and pushed to git, so we may expect it with the >> next xfce-session versions. Using the "Action Buttons" plugin with >> Shutdown or Restart will still not work, but that's a different bug. Or >> maybe a feature, because the session settings specifically include the >> text "... on logout". > > Sorry I've changed DEs again :) > >> >>> For SIGINT, if it's handled, it'll ask if you want to save unsaved >>> documents before closing when Ctrl+C is used from the terminal. Not >>> saying whether we should handle it or not, just that it's why my tests >>> included it. >> >> My whole X terminates if I run it from a virtual console and press >> Ctrl+C, so why should Geany handle the signal? Is this a normal >> practice for the GUI programs under X than I'm not aware of? >> >> And of course, the portability of signal(2) is so bad that only SIG_DFL >> and SIG_IGN can be trusted. > > Which is why it should only be "handled" via the mainloop, but as you > say its very questionable if we want to do any handling of either of > these signals anyway. > > Lets see if a reason emerges. > > Cheers > Lex >
Since Dimitar and I are in agreement that the current code is *WRONG* and dangerous I will commit an initial patch to comment out the sigterm handling soon. I see no reason to have this at all, but a corrected version of the commented out code may be added later if needed. Cheers Lex >> >> -- >> E-gards: Jimmy >> _______________________________________________ >> Geany-devel mailing list >> Geany-devel@uvena.de >> https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel _______________________________________________ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel