>Can nohup really prevent processes from trapping SIGHUP? I thought it >just set the SIGUP handler to discard and hoped for the best.
It's normally a bug to catch ignored signals. Daomons that reread config files when they receive a signal may be counterexamples. OTOH, they probably shouldn't be started with some signals ignored unless ignoring those signals is really wanted. >Xntpd in the base system explicitly requests its graceful termination >function, called finish(), be loaded as the SIGHUP handler. This seems to be just a bug. finish() is used for SIGHUP, SIGINT, SIGQUIT and SIGTERM. finish() just finishes (actually it has undefined behaviour since it calls exit()), so nothing except undefined behaviour is lost by ignoring these signals. Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
