Re: [hackers] [slstatus][PATCH] Handle SIGUSR1 for forced refreshes

2020-07-14 Thread Hiltjo Posthuma
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 02:45:14PM +0200, Mart Lubbers wrote: > Dear all, > I've submitted this patch before but maybe I did something wrong (it was > before > the confirmation mail of the subscription). If there is anything else off with > this email/patch, please let me know. > Best, > >

[hackers] [slstatus][PATCH] Handle SIGUSR1 for forced refreshes

2020-07-14 Thread Mart Lubbers
Dear all, I've submitted this patch before but maybe I did something wrong (it was before the confirmation mail of the subscription). If there is anything else off with this email/patch, please let me know. Best, Original email: At some point one might want to force a refresh for example after

Re: [hackers] setsid: add optional -f to force fork()

2020-07-14 Thread Hiltjo Posthuma
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 12:15:20PM +0200, Mattias Andrée wrote: > Hi, > > Is there any reason you would want to force it? > > Yes, when getpgrp() != getpid(). I use this in my plumb script for my news program to setsid -f and open a link my browser. Using the setsid -f option the browser is

Re: [hackers] setsid: add optional -f to force fork()

2020-07-14 Thread Mattias Andrée
Hi, Is there any reason you would want to force it? Regards, Mattias Andrée On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 10:15:43 +0200 Hiltjo Posthuma wrote: > Hi, > > The below patch adds an -f flag to force fork(2)ing and creating a new > process. > > > From a75ef384c11b64732dd6a3adc9249ba6beb8a67e Mon Sep

[hackers] setsid: add optional -f to force fork()

2020-07-14 Thread Hiltjo Posthuma
Hi, The below patch adds an -f flag to force fork(2)ing and creating a new process. >From a75ef384c11b64732dd6a3adc9249ba6beb8a67e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Hiltjo Posthuma Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 10:11:43 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] setsid: add optional -f to force fork() --- setsid.1 | 3