Re: Inconsistent signal handling?

[Philippe Troin <phil@xxxxxxxx>]

Peter Stephenson <pws@xxxxxxx> writes:

> Philippe Troin wrote:
> >  [1] Why do we ignore SIGTERM on interactive sessions? That sounds
> >      like a bad idea to me.
> 
> We restore SIGTERM to the default in entersubsh(), i.e. for all spawned
> programmes.  So the intent seems to be that only the parent shell
> ignores it.

Yes, I've never said that programs launched by zsh had SIGTERM blocked
or ignored. But I was wondering what was the rationale behind ignoring
SIGTERM within zsh? I've always been annoyed at not being able to kill
zsh with SIGTERM and having to send SIGHUP (or whatever-signal-of-the-day).

BTW what is your opinion about the rest of the patch?

Phil.