Re: Want way to run background processes with SIGINT unignored

[Chet Ramey]

On 10/10/15 4:19 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
> Chet Ramey wrote:
>> On 10/9/15 2:42 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>
>>> However, it would be very easy for bash to provide an option (via `set
>>> -o' perhaps) to disable this behaviour.  That is, to allow SIGINT to
>>> be delivered normally to child processes.
>>
>> I'm restricting non-standard options to `shopt' to avoid any possible
>> conflict with future posix changes.
> ---
> Thats a straw-man excuse if I ever heard one: use a "bash_"
> prefix to any new options.  But, still, if you think even that
> that might collide w/future posix choices, then don't use shopt
> at all: use "bashopt" with bash-defined options and usage.
> Either way, that should allay your worries on that front.

That's a fairly impressive misunderstanding.  I'm talking about adding
options to `shopt', which is not standardized and specific to bash,
instead of adding the `set -o' option Ian requested because I'm leaving
the `set -o' namespace to Posix.


>>> With such an option, scripts which run on modern systems and which
>>> attempt to parallelise their work, would be able to arrange that ^C
>>> properly cleans up the whole process group, rather than leaving the
>>> background tasks running (doing needless work and perhaps causing
>>> lossage).
> ----
>     I pointed this out as a serious regression in 4.3 as bash
> makes steps to really screw up async/realtime children handling
> work in:

This really doesn't have anything to do with what Ian is talking about.

-- 
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
                 ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, ITS, CWRU    chet@case.edu    http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/