Am Wed, 28 Dec 2011 14:48:45 -0500 schrieb Greg Wooledge <wool...@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
