Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!ames!sdcsvax!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!hplabs!hpda!hpihoah!hpirs!hpisoa1!davel
From: davel@hpisoa1.HP.COM (Dave Lennert)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Big fun with initttab!
Message-ID: <2200014@hpisoa1.HP.COM>
Date: Sun, 7-Jun-87 18:13:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: hpisoa1.2200014
Posted: Sun Jun  7 18:13:58 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 11-Jun-87 06:34:19 EDT
References: <90@paisana.UUCP>
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino
Lines: 18

> >                                     .....  Sounds like a good task
> >for an inittab entry, correct?  The only problem is that the process
> >that must be kept continuously running is a background process, which
> >gets called by the afformentioned shell, which croaks immediately
> >after invoking the background process.  
> 
> At the end of the shell invoked by init, "exec" your pure executable
> rather than throwing it in the background.  The pure executable will
> then have the same process id as the shell had, and init will be happy
> because its child is still running.

Not if the process forces itself into the background by forking and 
having the parent exit.  I assume this must be the case, otherwise
the shell script could just be changed to omit the "&" on the invocation
of the program.  (Granted an "exec" under such circumstances would
work even better since it results in one less process.)

-Dave Lennert   HP   ihnp4!hplabs!hpda!davel