On 07/30/2010 09:56, Jilles Tjoelker wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 07:46:20PM -0400, jhell wrote:
>> So what has been commited here is implicitly stating that instead of
>> using ( trap 'exit 1' 2 ) in a script to catch SIGINT and exit it is now
>> being done on behalf of the user with no way fo
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 07:46:20PM -0400, jhell wrote:
> So what has been commited here is implicitly stating that instead of
> using ( trap 'exit 1' 2 ) in a script to catch SIGINT and exit it is now
> being done on behalf of the user with no way for them to control it ?
No, this commit only chan
So what has been commited here is implicitly stating that instead of
using ( trap 'exit 1' 2 ) in a script to catch SIGINT and exit it is now
being done on behalf of the user with no way for them to control it ?
Basically this has the same effect on a script that uses ( && ) and to
which now have
Author: jilles
Date: Thu Jul 29 16:55:27 2010
New Revision: 210616
URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/210616
Log:
MFC r208881: sh: Pass through SIGINT if interactive and job control
is enabled.
This already worked if without job control.
In either case, this depends on it tha
