Re: bash vs. screen vs. SIGINT

[Samuel Thibault]

Thomas Schwinge, le Tue 06 Oct 2009 23:43:37 +0200, a écrit :
> On Sat, Oct 03, 2009 at 06:06:35PM +0200, I wrote:
> > There are issues with the bash 4.0 packages, and new Debian screen
> > packages w.r.t. handling of SIGINT.  I don't think that glibc is at
> > fault, but instead bash and screen should be looked at.  Details are at
> > <http://www.bddebian.com:8888/~hurd-web/open_issues/bash_vs_screen_vs_sigint/>.
> 
>     # if defined(__osf__) || (BSD >= 199103) || defined(ISC)

turned into

>     # if defined(__FreeBSD_kernel__) && defined(TIOCSCTTY)
> 
> The setsid call indeed doesn't seem to be needed / is done before, but it
> seems that on the Hurd we also still need the TIOCSCTTY one -- if I cover
> __GNU__ in the #if, then screen works again as expected.  Is this the
> correct thing to do then?

Seems so, as indicated in the O_NOCTTY documentation:

/* `open' never assigns a controlling terminal in GNU.  */
#define O_NOCTTY        0       /* Don't assign a controlling terminal. */

and thus TIOCSCTTY has to explicitely be done to set it.  I believe a
proper fix is thus to add an explicit || defined(__GNU__)

Samuel