On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 10:16 -0500, David Zeuthen wrote: > On Sun, 2008-01-06 at 18:50 -0500, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > On Fri, 2008-01-04 at 10:21 -0900, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > > > On Jan 4, 2008 9:50 AM, Nils Philippsen <nphilipp@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > If I'm not off track, at least screen predates X session management by a > > > > few years. So if anything, X session management was (for want of a > > > > better word) designed to not make established ways how to make a process > > > > a daemon (and screen, nohup etc. do nothing else) break. > > > > > > I personally don't know what I would do if screen was forcibly exited > > > when I left the desktop environment. I've been relying on screen to > > > run data analysis processes which take a long time due primarily to > > > file i/o and not memory or cpu. What would be the quickest and least > > > annoying workaround for that behavior. I guess it would be to open a > > > gnome-terminal, then ssh into localhost and then start screen from > > > inside the ssh session. Then when the desktop session ended and all > > > related processes were killed, gnome-terminal and the ssh connection > > > would die, but the screen session would live because it was started > > > from inside the ssh session and thus outside the scope of desktop > > > session itself. > > > > I can't *wait* to explain that in the release notes. > > No, Jeff is getting it wrong. According to the thread SIGHUP is proposed > to be used and screen(1) don't exit when someone sends SIGHUP to it. No > need to cry wolf... SIGHUP already have a defined meaning, and is normally sent when the controlling tty disappears. In an X session this would be when the terminal app dies. I'm not sure that extending/changing this will work well. -- Fedora-desktop-list mailing list Fedora-desktop-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-desktop-list
