In message
<7c5be6d7-5782-44ad-aae7-7f7bbc798...@n32g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, goodman
wrote:
> Though I'm still a little confused how, if subprocess.Popen is using
> os.execvp, it still maintains control of things like interrupts.
The implied point, being that we are spawning subprocesses, is
On Nov 4, 4:43 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message
> <0f1a17f4-b6a9-4e89-ac26-74b1098a0...@b19g2000prj.googlegroups.com>, goodman
> wrote:
>
> > Hi, I'm wondering why subprocess.Popen does not seem to replace the
> > current process, even when it uses os.execvp (according to the
> > docume
On Nov 4, 1:22 am, goodman wrote:
> Note: Our server is a Linux machine, but we're restricted to Python
> 2.4.
>
> Hi, I'm wondering why subprocess.Popen does not seem to replace the
> current process, even when it uses os.execvp (according to the
> documentation:http://docs.python.org/library/sub
In message
<0f1a17f4-b6a9-4e89-ac26-74b1098a0...@b19g2000prj.googlegroups.com>, goodman
wrote:
> Hi, I'm wondering why subprocess.Popen does not seem to replace the
> current process, even when it uses os.execvp (according to the
> documentation:
> http://docs.python.org/library/subprocess.html#s
Note: Our server is a Linux machine, but we're restricted to Python
2.4.
Hi, I'm wondering why subprocess.Popen does not seem to replace the
current process, even when it uses os.execvp (according to the
documentation: http://docs.python.org/library/subprocess.html#subprocess.Popen).
Specifically,
