On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 09:58:33 -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
>> >> I find that in many cases I need my background tasks to be executed
>> >> in sequence. Ie, I need background task-b to start right after
>> >> background task-a has properly started.
>> >>
>> >> So far I haven't found a good way to do it. I used
>> >>
>> >> task-a & sleep 2; task-b &
>> >>
>> >> but that 'sleep 2' has changed to 'sleep 5' and still sometimes
>> >> task-b starts before task-a. I can raise the wait time, but it means
>> >> that task-b would normally start too late...
>> >>
>> >> Any good way?
>> >
>> > "background" and "in sequence" are a bit (no, a *lot*) contradictory.
>>
>> yeah, so true.
>>
>> hi, thanks everyone who replied.
>>
>> > What you probably want is a *sequence* and put *it* in the background.
>> > This, maybe:
>> >
>> > (task-a && sleep 2 && task-b) &
>>
>> or as Cameron suggested
>>
>> { task-a ; task-b ; } &
>>
>> to avoid needlessly forking.
>>
>> This is the common theme for all the answers so far. But the problem is
>> that my background tasks are real background tasks, eg. emacs and tk
>> scripts, that they'd not finish and return.
>
> does this mean you need to start task-a, wait a little and then start task
> b to run concurrently with task-a?
Exactly.
One example is my TK script. I guess I can use Mumia's done-file approach.
The other is actually plain emacs. I started my 1st emacs session with
-geometry parameter to position it at a exact location on my x-win, then
the 2nd one is grouped to it by my fluxbox -- the nice feature of fluxbox
that allows applications that you choose to share the very same place on X.
It sound a bit confusion but the bottom line is, yes, I need to do exactly
what you've described.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
