Bug#339691: vacation does not wait for its sendmail child

2005-11-19 Thread Vlada Macek
[At 18.11.2005 18:08, Steve Langasek kindly sent the following quotation.] On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 05:46:12PM +0100, Vlada Macek wrote: No, I think this is a bogus assumption on the part of maildrop, not a megabug in vacation. I don't see any reason why maildrop should be either setting a

Bug#339691: vacation does not wait for its sendmail child

2005-11-18 Thread Vlada Macek
[At 18.11.2005 08:23, Steve Langasek kindly sent the following quotation.] On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 01:17:43AM +0100, Vlada Macek wrote: Vacation does not wait for its sendmail child to die in any way and exits! Therefore accurate vacation parent (such as maildrop MDA) wipes forked and

Bug#339691: vacation does not wait for its sendmail child

2005-11-18 Thread Marco d'Itri
On Nov 18, Vlada Macek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know whether the package maintainer is viable (there is at least one other serious bug for vacation), but I plead for fixing this bug. It I plan to finish my pending vacation update, some day. But people should really stop using

Bug#339691: vacation does not wait for its sendmail child

2005-11-18 Thread Steve Langasek
clone 339691 -1 reassign -1 maildrop retitle -1 maildrop: kills processes it shouldn't severity 339691 normal thanks On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 10:44:26AM +0100, Vlada Macek wrote: [At 18.11.2005 08:23, Steve Langasek kindly sent the following quotation.] On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 01:17:43AM

Bug#339691: vacation does not wait for its sendmail child

2005-11-18 Thread Vlada Macek
[At 18.11.2005 16:35, Steve Langasek kindly sent the following quotation.] (void)kill( -getprocgroup(), SIGHUP ); in the cleanup() method. It's probably more than most of the parent processes do out there, but at least it reveals such megabugs like that of vacation. No, I think this is a

Bug#339691: vacation does not wait for its sendmail child

2005-11-18 Thread Steve Langasek
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 05:46:12PM +0100, Vlada Macek wrote: No, I think this is a bogus assumption on the part of maildrop, not a megabug in vacation. I don't see any reason why maildrop should be either setting a process group, or killing the group, under such circumstances. I think

Bug#339691: vacation does not wait for its sendmail child

2005-11-17 Thread Vlada Macek
Package: vacation Version: 3.3.0 Severity: grave Tags: patch Vacation does not wait for its sendmail child to die in any way and exits! Therefore accurate vacation parent (such as maildrop MDA) wipes forked and executed sendmail before it could send any message... Also multiple events that

Bug#339691: vacation does not wait for its sendmail child

2005-11-17 Thread Steve Langasek
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 01:17:43AM +0100, Vlada Macek wrote: Vacation does not wait for its sendmail child to die in any way and exits! Therefore accurate vacation parent (such as maildrop MDA) wipes forked and executed sendmail before it could send any message... Huh? Why is that a