On Monday 17 September 2001 11:15 am, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 11:07:13AM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > On Monday 17 September 2001 11:04 am, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> >
> > I know what the mails were about. I am simply stating that it is still
> > completely bogus.
>
> I disagree.
>
> It should be SIGUSR1 everywhere. As a compromise, I allowed configure
> to use SIGWINCH on Linux 2.0. Would it make more sense to give a fatal
> error on that platform? -- justin
Have you ever tried running a threaded app that uses SIGUSR1 on Linux 2.0?
It doesn't even start. If you turn that into a fatal error, then you should be
prepared to answer all of the questions from Linux users about it. If you really
think that you won't get any, take a look at what happened when we forced
Windows users to use WinSock2.
Forcing people to use SIGUSR1on a platform that has co-opted that signal
is broken.
Ryan
______________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Covalent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------
