Re: LYNX-DEV Control-Z and SIGSTOP mysteries

[Klaus Weide]

On Sat, 17 May 1997, Bela Lubkin wrote:
> Unix gurus from any coast agree: system() does not give the programmer
> enough control, and should only be used in one-off or prototype
> programs.  For real use you should construct your own subprocess
> handling code out of the underlying fork(), exec(), wait() functions.
> One system() problem which is especially relevant to Lynx is that its
> underlying implementation varies from one Unix to another.  These
> variations will show up particularly in areas like the signal handling
> anomalies you're experiencing.

Thanks for confirming that I am not totally off.

> Any time Lynx is waiting on a subprocess, I believe it should be
> completely ignoring job control signals (SIGSTOP, SIGTSTP, SIGTTIN,
> SIGTTOU, SIGCONT).  It should neither stop nor continue; it should
> tenaciously wait for its child, nothing else. 

So which unix guru is offering to write a replacement LYSystem(),
built out of those ingredients, and just with those properties?
We could #define system to that for systems where the new LYSystem works
(and is disarable), and use the system's system() for other systems,
without lots of #ifdefs all over the place.

   Klaus


;
; To UNSUBSCRIBE:  Send a mail message to address@hidden
;                  with "unsubscribe lynx-dev" (without the
;                  quotation marks) on a line by itself.
;