[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       fedora-desktop-list
Subject:    Re: musings on session service mgmt
From:       David Zeuthen <davidz () redhat ! com>
Date:       2008-01-07 15:16:21
Message-ID: 1199718982.2885.5.camel () oneill ! fubar ! dk
[Download RAW message or body]


On Sun, 2008-01-06 at 18:50 -0500, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-01-04 at 10:21 -0900, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> > On Jan 4, 2008 9:50 AM, Nils Philippsen <nphilipp@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > If I'm not off track, at least screen predates X session management by a
> > > few years. So if anything, X session management was (for want of a
> > > better word) designed to not make established ways how to make a process
> > > a daemon (and screen, nohup etc. do nothing else) break.
> > 
> > I personally don't know what I would do if screen was forcibly exited
> > when I left the desktop environment.  I've been relying on screen to
> > run data analysis processes which take a long time due primarily to
> > file i/o and not memory or cpu.  What would be the quickest and least
> > annoying workaround for that behavior. I guess it would be to open a
> > gnome-terminal, then ssh into localhost and then start screen from
> > inside the ssh session.  Then when the desktop session ended and all
> > related processes were killed, gnome-terminal and the ssh connection
> > would die, but the screen session would live because it was started
> > from inside the ssh session and thus outside the scope of desktop
> > session itself.
> 
> I can't *wait* to explain that in the release notes.

No, Jeff is getting it wrong. According to the thread SIGHUP is proposed
to be used and screen(1) don't exit when someone sends SIGHUP to it. No
need to cry wolf...

     David


-- 
Fedora-desktop-list mailing list
Fedora-desktop-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-desktop-list
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]