Re: bash sends SIGHUP to disowned children in non-interactive mode

[Philip]

Am Wed, 28 Dec 2011 14:48:45 -0500
schrieb Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org>:

> 
> If you want to disown something, you have to *stop* doing this double-fork
> nonsense.
> 
> #!/bin/bash
> set -m
> xterm &
> disown -h
> 
> Do not put (...) around the background job.  When you do that, the main
> bash process loses its parenthood over the xterm process, so it won't be
> able to manage it.
> 
> I'm not 100% sure if the set -m will be required to enable "disown" to work,
> but I'd try it that way.
> 
That "double-fork nonsense" was just to ensure that the forked process was not a
child of the shell. And I still don't understand why it sends a SIGHUP to such a
process on exit. Or maybe I do now..
The 'set -m' is exactly what is needed for everything to work. Then disown works
as expected and so does the double-fork. Without 'set -m' neither of the two 
ways
work properly.
I thought if the header
#!/bin/bash -i
is used that includes job management? Maybe that's the bug Stas Sergeev is 
talking
about in the previous thread?
Well, thanks a lot for the input. I thought I had job management covered with 
the
"-i" flag.

best regards