Bryan Kadzban escribió: > 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"? >
It's wrong, because /etc/inittab is a config file, so it doesn't control anything. The user can get confused with that too... -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
