On 08/01/23 23:28 +0200, Kalle Olavi Niemitalo said ... > Y Giridhar Appaji Nag <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > See also: http://bugs.debian.org/331409#57 > > Thank you for the pointer. However, I think it would be wrong > to reopen bug 331409 for the Bash-ELinks interaction, because > it was originally about a busy loop in Bash and that's not what > happens in bug 337159. > > What is the procedure for asking the Bash maintainer whether
I am Cc:ing the bash PTS for a comment. > he considers the loss of SIGCONT a bug in Bash or in ELinks > (and if the latter, how else should ELinks be implemented)? Hi Matthias, can you please comment on this? From http://bugs.debian.org/337159#30 : The reason is that "fg" in Bash nowadays does not send SIGCONT to the job if Bash has seen from waitpid() that the job is already running. ELinks expects to receive this SIGCONT, in order to know when it should try to take control of the terminal again. This worked correctly in Bash 2.05 but has been broken since 2.05a. > I suppose I shouldn't just reassign bug 337159 to bash. We can do that at a later point. Giridhar -- Y Giridhar Appaji Nag | http://www.appaji.net/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
