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 he considers the loss of SIGCONT a bug in Bash or in ELinks (and if the latter, how else should ELinks be implemented)? I suppose I shouldn't just reassign bug 337159 to bash.
pgp5TaeuBGrlu.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ elinks-dev mailing list [email protected] http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/elinks-dev
