6 Apr 1999 16:07
6 Apr 1999 16:48
Welcome to ILUG-C running on Listar!
hi,
__________________________________________________________
______| |______
\ | Welcome to the ILUG-C/M mailing list. | /
\ | Powered by Listar ! | /
/ |__________________________________________________________| \
/_________) (_________\
Indian Linux Users' Group - Chennai/Madras is an informal
group of Linux and other free Unix users in the city. It coalesced in
mid-1998, and is still going strong. Meetings are held on the third
Saturday of every month at the Computer Center, IIT Madras.
The ILUG-C/M mailing list has moved from using simple mail
aliases to a proper mailing list manager, Listar. Please note however,
that the mailing address for list messages has not changed. It remains
<ilugc@...>.
Listar is pretty much like other mailing-list managers from
the user's perspective, except that you've got boatloads of options
and flags available. I shall try and give a brief description of the
options available to subscribers of a Listar based mailing list.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
GUIDELINES:
^^^^^^^^^^^
1. This is primarily an announcement mailing list, while technical
(Continue reading)
6 Apr 1999 17:36
Re: NOHUP
Oommen Thomas wrote: > AFAIK, unless we spec a 'nohup' any user process running in the > background, will terminate once s/he logs out. Not necessarily. The process will receive SIGHUP. The default disposition for SIGHUP is to terminate the process, but a program can override this if it wishes. -- -- Glynn Clements <glynn@...> ------------------------------
6 Apr 1999 18:50
Re: Any GUI for RCS ?
On Mon, 5 Apr 1999, Oommen Thomas wrote: > > > We were trying to implement RCS for all version control. > But the problem is the purely command-line interface. > > Is there a (preferably MS-Windows based) GUI which will connect to some > server process doing the version control stuff at the (Linux) server? > If so, that would be great and will suit even not-so-Linux-literate guys. > > Pls note that we need this for production purposes and hence are looking > for some stable software. > > - > TIA, > Oommen I think you'll have better luck looking for a GUI for CVS, which can use RCS on the server. I was looking 4-5 months ago and didn't see anything very promising. Good Luck. If you have some programmers who could help out, writing a Visual Basic interface to the command line cvs client shouldn't be too bad...I use the command line version where needed. Bill Carlson | Opinions expressed are my own KINZE Manufacturing, Inc. | not my employer's. ------------------------------(Continue reading)
7 Apr 1999 02:07
Re: Any GUI for RCS ?
On Tue, 6 Apr 1999, Bill Carlson wrote: > I think you'll have better luck looking for a GUI for CVS, which can use > RCS on the server. I was looking 4-5 months ago and didn't see anything > very promising. Good Luck. I don't know if this will help, but the Gnome project has a precisely this, a frontend for CVS. Have never used it, and it definitely doesn't run under Windows. Still, you may want to look at it. Check www.gnome.org, the app list. - arun ------------------------------
7 Apr 1999 08:31
Re: NOHUP
On Tue, 6 Apr 1999, Glynn Clements wrote: glynn> glynn> Oommen Thomas wrote: glynn> glynn> > AFAIK, unless we spec a 'nohup' any user process running in the glynn> > background, will terminate once s/he logs out. glynn> glynn> Not necessarily. The process will receive SIGHUP. The default glynn> disposition for SIGHUP is to terminate the process, but a program can glynn> override this if it wishes. glynn> glynn> -- glynn> Glynn Clements <glynn@...> glynn> But stty -a shows hupcl as default. Why then does background processes not get killed at all, when user logs out ? This happens with even simple shell scripts - say I have one with 'tail -f /etc/passwd' which if run in background, remains (sleeping) unatttached even after logging out. Why? _ Oommen. ------------------------------(Continue reading)
7 Apr 1999 09:09
Re: NOHUP
Oommen Thomas wrote: > glynn> > AFAIK, unless we spec a 'nohup' any user process running in the > glynn> > background, will terminate once s/he logs out. > glynn> > glynn> Not necessarily. The process will receive SIGHUP. The default > glynn> disposition for SIGHUP is to terminate the process, but a program can > glynn> override this if it wishes. > > But stty -a shows hupcl as default. That has nothing to do with SIGHUP; it's actually the opposite. `stty hupcl' causes the modem to be hung up when the last process closes the tty. SIGHUP is sent to the foreground process group when the serial driver detects a hangup. > Why then does background processes not get killed at all, when user logs > out ? This happens with even simple shell scripts - say I have one with > 'tail -f /etc/passwd' which if run in background, remains (sleeping) > unatttached even after logging out. SIGHUP is only sent to the foreground process group. -- -- Glynn Clements <glynn@...>(Continue reading)
7 Apr 1999 11:02
Re: NOHUP
On Wed, 7 Apr 1999, Glynn Clements wrote: glynn> glynn> Oommen Thomas wrote: glynn> glynn> > glynn> > AFAIK, unless we spec a 'nohup' any user process running in the glynn> > glynn> > background, will terminate once s/he logs out. glynn> > glynn> glynn> > glynn> Not necessarily. The process will receive SIGHUP. The default glynn> > glynn> disposition for SIGHUP is to terminate the process, but a program can glynn> > glynn> override this if it wishes. glynn> > glynn> > But stty -a shows hupcl as default. glynn> glynn> That has nothing to do with SIGHUP; it's actually the opposite. glynn> glynn> `stty hupcl' causes the modem to be hung up when the last process glynn> closes the tty. glynn> glynn> SIGHUP is sent to the foreground process group when the serial driver glynn> detects a hangup. glynn> glynn> > Why then does background processes not get killed at all, when user logs glynn> > out ? This happens with even simple shell scripts - say I have one with glynn> > 'tail -f /etc/passwd' which if run in background, remains (sleeping) glynn> > unatttached even after logging out. glynn> glynn> SIGHUP is only sent to the foreground process group. glynn> glynn> --(Continue reading)
7 Apr 1999 16:36
Re: NOHUP
Oommen Thomas wrote: > glynn> > Why then does background processes not get killed at all, when user logs > glynn> > out ? This happens with even simple shell scripts - say I have one with > glynn> > 'tail -f /etc/passwd' which if run in background, remains (sleeping) > glynn> > unatttached even after logging out. > glynn> > glynn> SIGHUP is only sent to the foreground process group. > > So, how to solve this problem? > ie. To get all background processes to terminate by default, when the user > logs out. Only when a 'nohup' is specified, must the process continue > unattached. You could run something like the following from ~/.bash_logout: i=1 ; while [ $i -lt 100 ] ; do kill %$i ; i=$((i+1)) ; done -- -- Glynn Clements <glynn@...> ------------------------------
15 Apr 1999 19:24
[Fwd: T Shirts]
hi, Got this message at the Linux-India list and wanted to know if any of you will be interested in this. -- -- prabhu -- Listar MIME Decryption -------------- -- Content: Included message
RSS Feed