[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: bin/51556: less(1) generates SIGTTOU if lacking a controlling terminal
Michael van Elst <mlelstv%serpens.de@localhost> wrote:
> The feature exists to prevent a _background process_ from interfering with
> the terminal. While output from a background process itself may or may not pass,
> changing the terminal settings is always stopped.
Yes, I understand that. My concern is that less(1) should not attempt
to manipulate the terminal if it doesn't have a controlling terminal.
I agree that timeout(1) should be better about setting things up, but
that's a separate issue. As Matthew noted, there appear to be two
distinct bugs here. Should we split this?
Main Index |
Thread Index |