On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 10:56:25PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote: > On 07/18/14 13:45, Isaac Dunham wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 08:24:07AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote: > >> > >> On 07/17/14 08:12, Rob Landley wrote:> On 07/17/14 00:58, technosaurus > >> wrote: > >>>> I think this is the same as daemonize() in toybox/lib. Should daemonize > >>>> just be defined to daemon(0,0) or is there a reason for it? > >>> > >>> daemon() isn't posix, so I have to figure out if it's best to > >>> reimplement it for portability, or just stick with the libc function we > >>> inherited from BSD and wait for the standard to catch up. In the <snip> > > So if we're still targetting "Linux, and maybe eventually BSD," use > > daemon(). > > Done. :)
I grep'd through the source and noticed that dhcp.c has dhcp_daemon(), which is exactly the same as daemonize(). So that could get removed as well. Thanks, Isaac Dunham _______________________________________________ Toybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.landley.net/listinfo.cgi/toybox-landley.net
