Re: bug in force_interactive handling

[Stas Sergeev]

02.01.2012 07:15, Chet Ramey wrote:
> On 12/30/11 5:36 AM, Stas Sergeev wrote:
> > Hello Chet, thanks for your patch file.
> > It is slightly broken, attached is the fixed version
> > of your patch.
> > BUT: it solves only half of the bug.
> Thanks, I inadvertently left that part of the patch out of what I sent.
Will you apply this patch for the next bash release?

> > Do you know how to fix also this?
> If you send the `cat' a SIGCONT it will end up running in the background:
> its process group id will never be the same as the terminal's.  Sending
> SIGCONT from another process will not set the terminal's process group to
> cat's pgid.  That's why things like `fg' and `bg' are shell builtins --
> so the shell can multiplex the terminal's process group among its children.
Thanks for the explanation.
In this case it would be nice for bash to have
a signal that will move the background process
to the foreground. Without this I still can't do
what I intended: I wanted the script to finish,
leaving the background process running. This
works only if my script sleeps till I send SIGCONT
to the process.
If it doesn't sleep, the SIGCONT may arrive later
than the script finishes, and the job gets killed.
I wonder if its possible in bash to implement the
signal handler to move the process to the background,
but that's probably about asking too much. :)
Thanks for your help!