Re: nohup?

[Paul Eggert]

Jim Meyering <address@hidden> writes:

> So this would work like bash's `disown -h'?

I think it's stronger than disown -h.  Not that I'm an expert, but my
impression is that disown -h merely arranges for the subprocess to
continue undisturbed even if Bash is HUPped.  But Solaris 'nohup -p
27' makes process 27 immune to nohup, regardless of 27's parent.  I
suspect it does this by pretending to be a debugger, attaching to
process 27, and then causing the process to execute the equivalent of
'signal (SIGHUP, SIG_IGN)'.  Hairy, huh?

Perhaps disown -h is enough to solve the original requester's problem,
and the original requester can be convinced to use bash.  In that case
we're done already.  If not, then it's a reasonable request though I
don't want to be the poor schmoe who has to implement it.

Andreas Schwab <address@hidden> writes:

> You don't need nohup for that.  Background processes will just continue
> running after logout.

That's true for many shells, but not all.  It's not true for a
POSIX-compliant sh, as far as I can tell from reading the standard.