Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att-cb!att-ih!ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!pur-ee!ea.ecn.purdue.edu!davy From: davy@ea.ecn.purdue.edu (Dave Curry) Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: SVR3.0 vs BSD4.3 Message-ID: <2350@ea.ecn.purdue.edu> Date: 29 Mar 88 21:01:07 GMT References: <12690@brl-adm.ARPA> <7581@brl-smoke.ARPA> Reply-To: davy@ea.ecn.purdue.edu.UUCP (Dave Curry) Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network Lines: 28 In article <7581@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) ) writes: >In article <12690@brl-adm.ARPA> rbj@icst-cmr.arpa (Root Boy Jim) writes: >> From: Doug Gwyn >> > "script" for recording terminal session >> "Script" screws up the application running under it sometimes. It >> could be implemented almost trivially with STREAMS. Somebody should >> do so. >>Interesting. Please elaborate. > >Elaborate on what? The screw-up is that certain operations do not >work right on ptys. Elaborate on that, please. *Which* operations? I don't claim there aren't any, but I haven't seen anything screw up in "script" in a long, long time. >The only thing not working was signal propagation to the >correct process group, because the Bourne shell doesn't have a way >to manipulate that. A translation to C would also be only a few >lines and could solve the signal problem. That's a pretty big "only". It is nice to know that you can do it in a few lines, though. Simplification is always good. Note however that "script" is hardly as short as it could be; I have written a clone of it in about 100 lines of code including variable declarations. --Dave Curry Purdue University Engineering Computer Network