It appears that xdvi is trying to call setsid() after vfork().
Just about the only valid thing to do after vfork() is exec().
I'll bet this is your problem.  You may try examining xdvi's
usage of setsid() after the vfork().
However, it looks like the parent is simply exiting after the
vfork.  In that case, you can change the vfork to a fork, and all
will be well.

Rob

On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 10:53:07AM +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Yes, I can read the setsid manpage, too, but it doesn't provide much 
> edification as to precisely why mktexpk fails with that message when
> run from xdvi, but when run from the command line with the same arguments
> seems to work perfectly. In fact, I'm not actually convinced that 
> mktexpk is being called at all.
> 
> I have put a copy of the decoded ktrace on the web at
> 
> http://www.rattus.net/~packrat/software/files/xdvi.trace.gz    (360kb)
> 
> with the trace all decendants flags on so that the location of the
> setsid stuff is visible. 
> 
> The relevant parts are of the following form:
> 
>  11520 xdvi.xdvi GIO   fd 1 wrote 79 bytes
>        "- mktexpk --mfmode ljfour --bdpi 600 --mag 'magstep(0)' --dpi 600 cmmi\
>         10 '>&3'
>        "
>  11520 xdvi.xdvi RET   write 79/0x4f
>  11520 xdvi.xdvi CALL  vfork
>  11521 xdvi.xdvi RET   vfork 11521/0x2d01
>  11521 xdvi.xdvi CALL  close(0x6)
>  11521 xdvi.xdvi RET   close 0
>  11521 xdvi.xdvi CALL  dup2(0x7,0x3)
>  11521 xdvi.xdvi RET   dup2 3
>  11521 xdvi.xdvi CALL  close(0x7)
>  11521 xdvi.xdvi RET   close 0
>  11521 xdvi.xdvi CALL  setsid
>  11521 xdvi.xdvi RET   setsid -1 errno 1 Operation not permitted
>  11521 xdvi.xdvi CALL  writev(0x2,0xbffff350,0x4)
>  11521 xdvi.xdvi GIO   fd 2 wrote 32 bytes
>        "setsid: Operation not permitted
>        "
>  11521 xdvi.xdvi RET   writev 32/0x20
>  11521 xdvi.xdvi CALL  exit(0x1)
>  11520 xdvi.xdvi RET   vfork 11521/0x2d01
>  11520 xdvi.xdvi PSIG  SIGCHLD caught handler=0xa2e4 mask=0x0 code=0x0
> 
> 
> What precisely was the function of the setsid call in xdvi and why
> is xdvi being killed by a return code which is (from the point of view
> of setsid) hardly fatal?
> 
> B>
> -- 
> Packrat (BSc/BE;COSO;Wombat Implementor)
> Nihil illegitemi carborvndvm.
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program.
> Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive?  Does it
> help you create better code?   SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help
> YOU!  Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/
> _______________________________________________
> Fink-devel mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program.
Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive?  Does it
help you create better code?   SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help
YOU!  Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/
_______________________________________________
Fink-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel

Reply via email to