On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 10:59:30AM +0200, T wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 00:10:43 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> >> I find that in many cases I need my background tasks to be executed in
> >> sequence. Ie, I need background task-b to start right after background
> >> task-a has properly started.
> >>
> >> So far I haven't found a good way to do it. I used
> >>
> >> task-a & sleep 2; task-b &
> >>
> >> but that 'sleep 2' has changed to 'sleep 5' and still sometimes task-b
> >> starts before task-a. I can raise the wait time, but it means that
> >> task-b would normally start too late...
> >>
> >> Any good way?
> >
> > "background" and "in sequence" are a bit (no, a *lot*) contradictory.
>
> yeah, so true.
>
> hi, thanks everyone who replied.
>
> > What you probably want is a *sequence* and put *it* in the background.
> > This, maybe:
> >
> > (task-a && sleep 2 && task-b) &
>
> or as Cameron suggested
>
> { task-a ; task-b ; } &
>
> to avoid needlessly forking.
>
> This is the common theme for all the answers so far. But the problem is
> that my background tasks are real background tasks, eg. emacs and tk
> scripts, that they'd not finish and return.
does this mean you need to start task-a, wait a little and then start
task b to run concurrently with task-a?
A
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature