On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 06:36:47PM -0600, Norvell Spearman wrote: > On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 10:29:34AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote: > > The man page exaggerates a bit. Without "exec", the xterm is > > started as a separate process, whereas with "exec" it replaces the > > *parent* shell: > > > > Without exec: > > > > bash > > xterm > > bash (client app) > > > > With exec: > > > > xterm (replaces original bash) > > bash (client app) > > I added an entry to the menu so that I have ``XTerm'' and ``Other > Xterm,'' with the former using `Exec xterm' and the latter using `Exec > exec xterm.' When I open ``Xterm'' and ``Other XTerm'' from the menu > and then do a ``ps -ax'' I get one xterm and one bash entry for both. I > also noticed that my xterm is really a shell script calling xterm.real > (the real binary), so I changed both menu entries to call xterm.real > directly --- with the same results as above. My ps output shows > something like this: > > 29836 ? S 0:00 xterm.real -sb <more options> > 29837 pts/1 S 0:00 bash > > Since bash is listed after xterm.real, does this mean that bash is > xterm's client (as in your second scenario above)?
In this case, probably yes. Try "pstree -p" to see which process was spawned by whom. > If so, why do using > both ``Exec exec xterm'' and ``Exec xterm'' seem to produce the same > results. Good question. I can only guess that modern shells use "exec" automatically when started with "<shell> -c <cmd>". > I'm not trying to belabor the point; I just want to be sure I > don't have unnecessary processes going on. Thanks very much. Bye Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- 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]
