On 04/24/2013 05:26 PM, Chet Ramey wrote: > On 4/23/13 2:05 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote: >> As reported in http://savannah.gnu.org/patch/?8025 , I would like to see the >> SIGRTMAX-n signal names disappear. >> >> Signals should never ever be addressed with SIGRTMAX-n. Signals should >> always be >> addressed with SIGRTMIN+n. > > I'll take a look at this, but that's a pretty strong statement to make from > something that appears in one Linux man page. I can't find any shell in my > quick testing that behaves as you propose. Is there any other reason to do > this? > > Chet > >
Any progress, comments?
