On 09/07/2015 07:32 PM, enh wrote: > Fix killall prompt. > > I'm not sure how much we care, but the " ?" was deliberately done to > match the desktop.
*squints* *tilts head* Do we _want_ a ? in the middle of the prompt? Yes, xubuntu's version is doing that, but... why? Huh. No posix spec, LSB says -i but nothing about the prompt, man page doesn't describe it either... > Since I'm here, the desktop also switches between > "Kill" and "Signal" as the verb depending on the specific signal. > (Though the -v output always uses "kill".) Hmmm... $ sleep 10000 & $ killall -i15 sleep [ help text dump, heh, good to know. ] $ killall -i -15 sleep Kill sleep(25653) ? (y/N) y So yes... that is the behavior it's doing, but... $ killall -9 sleep -i Signal sleep(4432) ? (y/N) kill -9 is signal, not kill? I wonder: $ busybox killall -i -15 sleep killall: bad signal name 'i' Riiight. That's today's git. "git log --follow */kill.c | cat" has the initial commit in 1999 (and that was a tree snapshot), so for at least 16 years nobody's ever bothered to implement -i. Digging out my old Red Hat 9 image from 2003 and booting it under qemu... (Last time I'm aware of that a single Linux distro had 50% of the Linux desktop was before Red Hat abandoned the desktop because it had figured out how to eat Sun's lunch, so I still occasionally pull it out as a historical frame of reference...) And that says "Kill" rather than "Signal" for -9 and -STOP, but otherwise has the weird ? in midstream. Right. You cared enough about this behavior to send me a patch, which means you care more than I do. I can apply this, it's a small inoffensive patch, but could you tell me why you want this before I do that? Did something actually need it, or just "it's different, therefore"...? Thanks, Rob (It's the aesthetic issues that are the hardest because there _is_ no right answer, just different ways to be wrong.) _______________________________________________ Toybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.landley.net/listinfo.cgi/toybox-landley.net
