Bryan Kadzban escribió: > 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... >
I think "Sending processes controlled by init the TERM signal..." is better; as processes started by bootscipts, and bootscripts themselves are not "controlled" by init. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
