Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> 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.
What do you think of:
Sending processes controlled directly by /etc/inittab the TERM signal...
^^^^^^^^^^ ^^
Thats 74 characters.
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
