Re: musings on session service mgmt

[David Zeuthen <davidz redhat com>]

On Fri, 2008-01-04 at 11:37 -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-01-04 at 11:29 -0500, David Zeuthen wrote:
> 
> > Maybe it's just me, but I think it's a lot easier to just fix the few
> > programs such as screen and nohup to opt out of getting reaped.. 
> 
> Unix has had a pretty standard definition of "session" using SIGHUP.
> The way programs have historically "opted out" of termination is to
> ignore that signal.
> 
> I don't think we should change that.

Fine so we send a SIGHUP instead of SIGTERM, then SIGKILL. Makes this a
lot easier.....

> Rather, some programs should be fixed to gain a dep on X11, DBus, or be
> run through the babysitter.

Why do you think it's a good idea to add libX11 or libdbus deps to a
program that don't use either? Do you think random upstream projects
would ever take such patches?

      David