On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 03:21:53PM -0500, Benjamin Reed wrote: > Daniel Macks wrote: > > >That's why there's the "renice" command, no? > > renice doesn't renice children of whatever you're renicing, does it? > It'd be a PITA to renice fink, the fink that fink spawns, 5 different > "make" sub-children, the shells those makes run, and so on...
A child takes the priority of its parent when it's spawned, so renice of a process would carry into all future child processes. So one would only have to renice a make or two; and definitely *not* back to the level of fink itself, since TheSin explained the feature to be applied just to the *Script not fink as a whole. Which I agree is how a feature like this should work. > I still think this is a reasonable idea, and dead easy to implement... > Is there any reason not to do it? It's reasonable. I was just curious if it pushed beyond "more than one way to do it" into the land of feature creep. dan -- Daniel Macks [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.netspace.org/~dmacks ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
