At 11:35 AM -0700 4/24/02, Kelly Kane wrote: > At 12:06 PM -0700 4/23/02, Randall Gellens wrote: >> At 7:05 AM +0200 4/23/02, Oliver Fleischmann wrote: >> >>> But I >>> didn't check this with those signal handling patches. I think I should do >>> that... >> >> Yes, that would be a good idea. > > I thought that HUP generally (from my Linux/BSD exp.) was handled > as a method to tell a process to rehash it's config file, and > gracefully restart itself?
I think officially it's "hangup", meaning the dial-up modem connection with the user was disconnected (the phone hung up). In the case of non-interactive daemon processes where there is no connection to a user, that sense of course doesn't apply, so it became a convenient way to tell the process to re-read its configuration file. In Qpopper's case, there is a communication link to the user, and Qpopper does get a HUP signal when this goes away (on some flavors of Unix anyway), so Qpopper handles HUP by cleaning up and going away.
