[SM-Discuss] util-linux, coreutils, shadow ...
lynx at mages.ath.cx
Fri Jan 25 04:05:56 EST 2008
On Thursday 24 of January 2008 21:25:22 Dale E. Edmons wrote:
> That'd make sense. I'm still leaning towards procps. The only
> reason I've gotten into this discussion is that I've had kill seem
> to be a bit random in it's success. However, I suspect it is due
> to bash's built-in and the individual program being killed.
I doubt this has anything to do with the flavour of kill one uses. Do remember
that programs can trap SIGINT to do cleanup or anything else. Or that zombies
are a resilient bunch. If SIGINT doesn't cut it in a few tries, do an
untrappable SIGKILL (kill-dash-nine no more cpu time!).
I don't know how or if at all the kill from coreutils and procps differ, but
the bash builtin is basically the same with two added features (it doesn't
fork and it can kill bash jobs).
> Maybe I should alias kill=/bin/kill and do more testing.
> Would there be any objections to generating a KILL make
> procps an optional provider of KILL?
To me this seems like a needless complication. I'd like to first see proof
that the two kills differ at all.
We cannot command nature except by obeying her. --Sir Francis Bacon
Have a sourcerous day! www.sourcemage.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 315 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/sm-discuss/attachments/20080125/74de6310/attachment.bin
More information about the SM-Discuss