[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Question about kill(1)



On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 09:24:07PM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> > I was reading the kill man page today looking for some information for a
> > script I am writing.  The man page mentioned that some shells have a
> > kill built-in command.  On further investigation, I noticed that bash
> > has this as a built-in.
> > 
> > My questions are:
> > 
> > * should I explicitly call /bin/kill?
> 
> No.  Just call it 'kill' as you would normally.  In general you should
> avoid hard coding paths like this unless you have a specific reason.
> And even then you should not use hard coded paths. :-)
> 
> > * is there any advantage to avoiding the built-in?
> 
> No.  The man page is pointing this out because when people go to
> report a bug in 'kill' they read man page and report it to procps or
> coreutils or wherever.  The maintainer there says you are not using
> the standalone kill but rather the one in bash (or ash or ...) and so
> then you back up and report the bug to bug-bash.
> 
> Now that you know there is a shell built-in version by reading it in
> the man page you can isolate the bug to the right package before
> submitting an inquiry on it to the wrong one.  (This is usually my
> experience with kill, sleep, nice, test, etc. in coreutils.  It is now
> one of the FAQs in coreutils[1].)
> 
> > * why the different implementations?
> 
> It is there for BSD job control functionality.  That way you can say
> 'kill %1' and kill the background jobs by job control number.  The
> standalone version does not know about the shell's list of jobs.
> 
> Bob
> 
> [1] http://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/faq/coreutils-faq.html#I-am-having-a-problem-with-kill

Thanks.  That was very enlightening.

-Roberto

-- 
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://familiasanchez.net/~sanchezr

Attachment: pgpGqOZoY4nuA.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: