Re: bin/51556: less(1) generates SIGTTOU if lacking a controlling terminal

[Jan Schaumann <jschauma%netmeister.org@localhost>]

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?