On Jan 10, 2015, at 4:50 PM, René J.V. Bertin <[email protected]> wrote:
> I don't see what's confusing when a process that most users don't know (nor > care) about keeps running. All they notice is that the port command > terminates a bit earlier than before. Do you expect a command-line foreground job to spawn background jobs that continue after the foreground job has finished? I sure don't. And such behavior would give a false impression that port(1) is finished, when it actually is not. vq _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
