🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <9209241935.AA24685.SM@odin.INS.CWRU.Edu> chet@po.cwru.edu writes:
#Now, after I've said all that, I think bash is being a little too zealous
#in its SIGHUP sending.  I will change the code to send SIGHUP to all
#jobs on receipt of SIGHUP only if the shell is interactive and a login
#shell, and lobby for its inclusion in the next release.

With some form of flag (shell variable) to say `I want the full SIGHUP
everything behaviour'?  Otherwise, functionality is lost.

The fact that SIGHUPs can end up killing processes that a user didn't want
to has a workaround (nohup).  By altering the behaviour of bash in the way
you mention, this workaround becomes unnecessary, but what about a
workaround the `other way'?

Please don't remove functionality just to make the default behaviour more
intuitive.

Mark

  Supporter of:
      SIGHUP being transferred to all sub-processes (even if you have
          to set a variable to do so);
      .bashrc being sourced and aliases working for non-interactive
          shells.