%% Dan Espen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Exec ssh-add < /dev/null;$HOME/bin/email-notify
de> The double exec is to get rid of the shell that launches and waits de> for the the command to terminate. Since email-notify probably de> hangs around, Exec exec is probably better, but I'm not too sure de> that the shell I created with 'sh -c' isn't hanging around. de> Probably another exec in the command will deal with it. de> All in all, I like your suggested solution better. de> I'll take simple over efficient every time. If you can stand being a _little_ less simple to get a _little_ more efficient, I think what you really want is this: Exec ssh-add < /dev/null ; exec $HOME/bin/email-notify This way (a) a shell is invoked, (b) the shell runs ssh-add, then (c) the shell execs email-notify, and in the end you just have one email-notify process running. >> > Exec exec sh -c 'ssh-add < /dev/null;$HOME/bin/email-notify' This doesn't save anything over the version at the top of this email, in terms of # of processes. Fvwm starts a shell, then that shell exec's a new shell, then the second shell starts ssh-add, then the second shell starts email-notify. So, at the end you still have a shell and email-notify running, same as the simple method :). -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul D. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> HASMAT--HA Software Mthds & Tools "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These are my opinions---Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them. -- Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL: http://www.fvwm.org/>. To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To report problems, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
