Ismael Luceno wrote: > 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.
Good point. I could see a user thinking that bootscripts *were* controlled by init (I did) -- but they really aren't. At least, not in a manner that would affect these TERM/KILL actions (which is sort of the problem; if you already know what processes are being killed, any correct wording should work, but otherwise you might get more confused). Using Bruce's "controlled directly" wording should work, though. I suppose it probably depends on how much we want to tell the user about exactly how sysvinit works through this message. If it's important that the user know that the affected processes will all be listed in /etc/inittab, then the "controlled directly by /etc/inittab" wording would be better. If it doesn't matter, the "controlled directly by init" version would work just as well. What do you think about Bruce's "controlled directly by /etc/inittab"?
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
