Re: [patch] don't resume terminal-stopped slave sessions

Scott <[email protected]> writes:

> It seems to me that automatically continuing suspended elinks sessions
> unrequested behind the back of the user is a bit mysterious and initially
> inexplicable for the naive user (like me ;)  The following patch allows this
> behavior to affect the master only, and be configurable even in that
> case.

Not automatically continuing slaves seems a good change.  But I
do not like the ui.sessions.keep_master_running option, it's just
trading one bug (Debian bug 337159) for another (slaves getting
stuck when the master is suspended, even though ELinks should
make all terminals equal from the user's viewpoint).

Could the master being suspended perhaps fork and become a slave,
passing the master responsibilities to the child process?  If an
operating system has SIGTSTP, it should have fork() too, I think.
And bug 181 which would have blocked this appears FIXED in master.

_______________________________________________
elinks-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/elinks-dev

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHT1CCHm9IGt60eMgRAhWjAJ444Hh6tVjQmnVjVpJk2SVuJPVRrACg3Ut7
Pdhuh5LpvNBwIB6vHxC/2i8=
=87o6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----