Bruce Dubbs wrote: > If a process is running that was started with the action ONCE and has > not terminated (e.g. sulogin), it may be killed also. This makes > your wording incorrect.
That's right; I must have not realized that when looking through the inittab manpage. For that matter, WAIT, POWERWAIT, POWEROKWAIT, and maybe even KBREQUEST might be killed also, if they're still running. And possibly even others; hmm. I think the vast majority of the time it'll be only RESPAWNs, but that doesn't make the wording correct. > Perhaps the wording should be "Sending processes controlled by > inittab ..." That sounds good to me. If we could fit a "directly" in there, that'd be even better, though (e.g. "started directly from inittab"). Let's see (I've got Thunderbird set up to wrap at 72 characters): Sending processes started directly from /etc/inittab the TERM signal... Yep, looks like it'd fit. So let's go with that (or inittab(5), or just plain inittab, I guess it doesn't matter much) instead.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
