On Wed, 2016-06-01 at 12:28 +0100, Tom Hughes wrote: > On 01/06/16 12:19, Howard Chu wrote: > > > > > This is still looking at the problem back-asswards. The problem > > isn't > > that screen and tmux are special cases. The problem is that some > > handful > > of programs that got spawned in a GUI desktop environment are > > special > > cases, not exiting when they should. > I'm sorry, but I disagree. > > There are basically three things that I'm aware of that are used from > a > user session to run something in background in a way that will > survive > the end of the user session and you named them - nohup, screen and > tmux. You forgot emacs. Yes, really, emacs the text editor -- which happens to have a server mode that allows it to do something similar to what tmux does, but more emacs-specific. Now you're thinking, "Is anyone using that?!" Yes, people use it -- someone at a Lisp user group was shocked that I had emacs running in a tmux session and told me all about the emacs server and how great it is. > So things which are intended to survive the end of a login session > really are the special case. The default behaviour has always been > that > things are killed when you logout, No, the default behavior has been that *some* things are killed when you log out. There are plenty of well-documented ways to avoid receiving SIGHUP and a large ecosystem of software out there that expects those techniques to work. Yes it is possible to push ecosystem-wide fixes, but it is a massive undertaking that needs to have real motivation. What is the strong motivation for this change? Why should anyone change their workflow, patch their code, or do anything unrelated to their day job to accommodate this new and unexpected behavior? -- Ben
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
