The point was who the heck sends the SIGHUP and why ? Poul-Henning
In message <23428.932574...@axl.noc.iafrica.com>, Sheldon Hearn writes: > >[Hi-jacked from cvs-committers and cvs-all] > >On Wed, 21 Jul 1999 18:15:09 +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > >> There is another one you may want to look at, I have not figured it >> out yet: >> >> I try to start a ntpd from /etc/rc.local this way: >> >> nohup /usr/local/bin/ntpd -d -d > /usr/ntp/x.ntpd 2>&1 & >> >>and it invariably ends up dead in a few seconds with: > >> Jul 17 12:26:39 <ntp.notice> bogon ntpd[248]: ntpd exiting on signal 1 > >Can nohup really prevent processes from trapping SIGHUP? I thought it >just set the SIGUP handler to discard and hoped for the best. > >Xntpd in the base system explicitly requests its graceful termination >function, called finish(), be loaded as the SIGHUP handler. > >What is it you'd like? > > 1) nohup should prevent processes from trapping SIGHUP. > 2) xntpd should reconfigure on SIGHUP. > 3) xntpd is getting a SIGHUP and you're not sure where from. > 4) xntpd is different from the port's ntpd in some way that > should change. > >Ciao, >Sheldon. > -- Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member p...@freebsd.org "Real hackers run -current on their laptop." FreeBSD -- It will take a long time before progress goes too far! To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
