On Sun, Aug 22, 1999 at 01:13:52AM -0400, Justin Wells wrote: > At any rate--your suggestion got me thinking, and there MAY be other > possibilities here. All of them involve trade-offs: > > #1-- sash could try harder to ensure that an "exec" succeeds before > it allows itself to exit. for example, instead of exec, it could > fork and exec, and then look for signs the new process was > healthy before quitting. Signs such as...? You'd basically need to turn sash into a debugger so that it could trap signals generated in a child process. I maintain that doing so adds too much complexity to what is supposed to be an _emergency shell_. > #2-- sash could stick around after an exec, and not actually exec at > all. it would quit if the exec'd process exits with a normal > error return, but it would reapper if the exec'd process exits > with an error for some reason. this could have subtle implications > which haven't occurred to me The bourne shell's return code is based on the return code of the last process run. Not a really reliable indicator... > #3-- instead of modifying sash, just run bash in your sash startup > script and check the return value yourself As above. Mike Stone
Attachment:
pgpW9h8Hg15im.pgp
Description: PGP signature