[Sorry for breaking the threading. I am not subscribed to screen-devel, since I don't plan to become more actively involved.]
Solofo wrote: > On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 2:38 AM, Jörgen Grahn > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > here's a patch which I wrote recently. The reasons and other details > > (including a short list of potential problems) [...] > > Thanks, nice to see what screen can be useful for! > Could you explain why you did not choose to use something like ulimit (-f)? Because it didn't occur to me (even though I think process limits are an underused Unix feature). However, I don't think ulimit -f would have worked here -- my screens have lots of children, and these need to be able to write gigantic files. For example, just the *suspicion* that a 1GB core dump could end up truncated when trying to scp it over for storage would have been a showstopper. Hacking screen seemed like a quicker and safer solution. We needed to raise the 40-window limit anyway, and that's another source code change. BR, /Jörgen -- // Jörgen Grahn | mot du jour: Bobby Driscoll \X/ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
