Re: Inconsistent signal handling?

[Peter Stephenson <pws@xxxxxxx>]

Philippe Troin wrote:
> 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).

I suspect it's too old to have a rationale.  I've no personal attachment
to it.

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

As far as I can tell, looks OK.

-- 
Peter Stephenson <pws@xxxxxxx>                  Software Engineer
CSR Ltd., Science Park, Milton Road,
Cambridge, CB4 0WH, UK                          Tel: +44 (0)1223 692070


**********************************************************************
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or
entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential 
and/or privileged material. 
Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by 
persons or entities other than the intended recipient is 
prohibited.  
If you received this in error, please contact the sender and 
delete the material from any computer.
**********************************************************************