On Mon, Jul 16, 2001 at 11:34:29AM -0400, Jason Tishler wrote:
> Corrina,
>
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2001 at 05:19:08PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 16, 2001 at 10:04:17AM -0400, Jason Tishler wrote:
> > > What about trying to tackle this from another point of view? I'm not
> > > sure if this is doable or acceptable, but what about adding logic to the
> > > Cygwin DLL so that it does not send SIGHUP (to itself) when the process is
> > > running under cygrunsrv?
> >
> > Hmmm, sounds like an ugly hack to me...
>
> Which is why I couched the above with "acceptable." However, there are
> other Unix daemons (e.g., inetd) that will respond to SIGHUP in a similar
> manner. Is modifying all of them, instead of just the Cygwin DLL, better?
That's not what I meant. I just don't like a solution which checks
for a specific situation which might change in future due to reasons
we don't know yet.
Would perhaps changing the general behaviour of Cygwin help?
For example when changing the runlevel on a Linux system is requested,
init(8) sends a SIGTERM to processes which aren't defined on the new
runlevel. Which is a similar situation, IMO. Perhaps changing Cygwin
from sending SIGHUP to sending SIGTERM makes any sense?
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com
Red Hat, Inc.
