Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!maddog!brooks
From: brooks@maddog.llnl.gov (Eugene Brooks)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Shoudl X11R3 xterm really ignore SIGHUP's?
Message-ID: <37724@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>
Date: 6 Nov 89 02:52:34 GMT
References: <1013@maxim.erbe.se> <8911052329.AA29134@kanga.lcs.mit.edu>
Sender: usenet@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV
Reply-To: brooks@maddog.llnl.gov (Eugene Brooks)
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Lines: 12

In article <8911052329.AA29134@kanga.lcs.mit.edu> jim@EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU (Jim Fulton) writes:
>The SIGHUP handling to make sure that xterm and its subprocess end up in the
>right group.  Removing them won't do you any good with your X terminal unless
>you are running a session manager that periodically pings the server to see if
>it is alive and then explicitly sends its own HUP signals.  
Suppose that you are using the CHECKPULSE patches for XDM, posted to this
newsgroup.  We have not been having any problems with it, but do you need
to also modify xterm to allow proper cleanup of the process group associated
with the session that the modified XDM is supposed to do?  XDMCP will no
doubt be great, but we need an interim solution to this problem now.

brooks@maddog.llnl.gov, brooks@maddog.uucp