Re: Proposed Utility - detach(1)

> I would appreciate comments on the usefulness of a utility which would > allow one to detach a process from a TTY. I imagine the utility would > be very small and just call daemon(3) and execlp(3). 1) cd /usr/ports/sysutils/detach have fun... 2) the code itself is rather simple and I w

Re: Proposed Utility - detach(1)

Chris Costello wrote: > > On Friday, August 24, 2001, Mike Barcroft wrote: > > I would appreciate comments on the usefulness of a utility which would > > allow one to detach a process from a TTY. I imagine the utility would > > be very small and just call daemon(3) and execlp(3). > > > > Would a

Re: Proposed Utility - detach(1)

On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 02:10:29AM -0700, David O'Brien wrote: [...] > The BSD/OS 4.1 code is also available for us to take this utility from. Really? I didn't know they donated all of that. Anyway it isn't a complex program. When I migrated from BSD/OS to FreeBSD it is one of the things I mis

Re: Proposed Utility - detach(1)

On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 09:53:21AM +0200, Mark Santcroos wrote: > BSD/OS already has daemon(8) for years that just runs daemon(3). > > I don't think it is necessary to change nohup, and go with the way BSD/OS > did it. The BSD/OS 4.1 code is also available for us to take this utility from. To U

Re: Proposed Utility - detach(1)

[ replying to the total thread ] BSD/OS already has daemon(8) for years that just runs daemon(3). I don't think it is necessary to change nohup, and go with the way BSD/OS did it. Mark ps. the manpage: daemon(8) BSD System Manager's Manualdaemon(8) NAME

Re: Proposed Utility - detach(1)

Valentin Nechayev wrote: > > Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 14:19:55, mike (Mike Barcroft) wrote about "Proposed Utility - >detach(1)": > > > I would appreciate comments on the usefulness of a utility which would > > allow one to detach a process from a TTY. I ima

Re: Proposed Utility - detach(1)

Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 14:19:55, mike (Mike Barcroft) wrote about "Proposed Utility - detach(1)": > I would appreciate comments on the usefulness of a utility which would > allow one to detach a process from a TTY. I imagine the utility would > be very small and just call d

Re: Proposed Utility - detach(1)

Chris Costello wrote: > On Friday, August 24, 2001, Mike Barcroft wrote: >> I would appreciate comments on the usefulness of a utility which would >> allow one to detach a process from a TTY. I imagine the utility would >> be very small and just call daemon(3) and execlp(3). >> >> Would a utili

Re: Proposed Utility - detach(1)

On Friday, August 24, 2001, Mike Barcroft wrote: > I would appreciate comments on the usefulness of a utility which would > allow one to detach a process from a TTY. I imagine the utility would > be very small and just call daemon(3) and execlp(3). > > Would a utility like this be useful? Is th

Re: Proposed Utility - detach(1)

I thought that nohup() did that? I guess it's abit different... On Fri, 24 Aug 2001, Ben Smithurst wrote: > Chris Costello wrote: > > > On Friday, August 24, 2001, Mike Barcroft wrote: > >> I would appreciate comments on the usefulness of a utility which would > >> allow one to detach a proces

Re: Proposed Utility - detach(1)

Here's the original PR I sent in, and my code: http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=6320 The included shell archive has a man page and source code that works, and has been run successfuly on systems as disparate as Xenix-286 and Tru64. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with

Proposed Utility - detach(1)

I would appreciate comments on the usefulness of a utility which would allow one to detach a process from a TTY. I imagine the utility would be very small and just call daemon(3) and execlp(3). Would a utility like this be useful? Is this functionality already available in a system utility? B